..............

[Deer Hunter]

http://boereport.com/2016/01/25/saud...olicy-is-that/

Saudi oil filling a New Brunswick refinery – what kind of a domestic energy policy is that?

January 25, 20167:57 AM Terry Etam

A Calgary based oil trader wishing to remain anonymous recently went on record to say that Irving Oil has “fixed the 299,235t Kamakshi Prem to ship crude on January 21 from Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia to its 300,000 b/d refinery in St. John, NB in Canada.”
Yes you read that right, Canada’s largest refinery, the Irving Oil New Brunswick facility, imports oil from Saudi Arabia. If you study crude trading markets, that news won’t come as much of as surprise since waterborne crude can originate anywhere, but for most of us, it’s a bit of a disconcerting shock. Why does Canada import oil at all, and if we must why from Middle Eastern nations like Saudi Arabia?

Given that eastern Canada imports oil from abroad, it becomes obvious that Canada has a problem. One region of the country produces too much oil, while another imports it from distant and perhaps unreliable jurisdictions. The imbalance is bad news for Canada because locally produced oil is having trouble getting to market due to a lack of pipeline infrastructure, which hurts multiple stakeholders. One solution is Trans Canada’s Energy East pipeline. It would move up to 1.1 million barrels per day of crude from landlocked western regions to eastern Canadian refineries. This would benefit western Canadian producers, eastern refiners, the government – through higher royalties and taxes – and Canada as a whole. Yet the Energy East project is, like any pipeline big enough to make the news, having a lot of trouble getting off the ground.

Opposition to Energy East is an outstanding oddity in Canadian public discourse. The grounds upon which there is opposition are so flimsy as to be nearly surreal. And of course, the overarching objective of the pipeline’s opponents is not to prevent industrial catastrophe, but rather to put a stop to oil sands development (and beyond that, end fossil fuel usage). Keeping that context in mind helps us understand why such disinformation can exist in the first place.

It’s not useful to engage Energy East’s opponents on the terms they choose to debate. Those discussions always tend to lack intellectual substance and play only on our fears, no matter how speculative. The question of whether pipelines are a worthy mode of crude transportation is not worth debating. There are plenty of statistics showing how safe pipeline transportation is relative to other means. It is nonsensical to say that new pipeline construction should be halted because accidents will happen. It is an insult to the people of Lac Megantic, QC to state, as was the recent case with several Montreal area mayors, that alternative oil transport systems (like crude by rail) are preferable. From an environmental perspective, perhaps a pipeline offloading oil in treacherous conditions in an incredibly sensitive ecosystem would be a concern. But to reverse an existing pipeline and build a new piece that ends at a refinery? Clearly a different situation (Energy East). Yet pipeline opponents make no distinction. Therefore, it is important to not pretend that that is a wise weighing of pros and cons. It is emotional fear-mongering with a different goal in mind.

That goal of course is to end the development of the oil sands. Up until now, development in the region has been comprehensively vilified. Take a look at this example, which claims that the ‘tar sands’ are one of the gravest threats to global warming. The author’s argument is derived from the fact that oil sands development requires more direct energy to extract than other sources of energy. This fact however quickly gets spun into ludicrous headline-grabbing statements about the inevitable catastrophe of developing the resource. For example, the article paints a grim picture of the consequences of “burning all the oil in the oil sands.”

It takes about 30 seconds to refute such nonsense. Oil sands production, even if optimistic projections were attained (but never will be due to the recent capping of oil sands emissions), could theoretically have reached 5 million barrels per day. In the first mentioned scenario, burning all 170 billion barrels of reserves, at 5 million barrels per day this would take…93 years. At today’s production rates you would need to double that time frame, meaning 186 years, give or take a year. To burn all 1.8 trillion barrels at 5 million barrels per day would take 980 years. An engineer in the article gravely points out that this would raise temperatures by 0.4 degrees Celsius. This chap unfortunately forgot to finalize the calculation, so I’ll do it for him – that’s .0004 degrees per year. To build enough solar panels to provide the energy equivalent of 1.8 trillion barrels of oil would have large environmental impacts as well. But who wants to hear about that.

There are other non-market factors that should be considered as well. If we choose to import oil from Saudi Arabia, then before claiming that it’s cleaner than oil sands’ “dirty oil”, shouldn’t we estimate the total GHG impact of Saudi Arabian oil, which must include the military footprint of safeguarding that oil in the midst of a perpetual war zone? Could someone please show the calculation for how much GHG is emitted by a fighter jet launching air strikes at irritating neighbors, including the chaotic aftermath? What are the CO2 emissions of torched oil wells that will take months to put out? How much GHG is emitted by tanks blowing things up, or by aircraft carriers lurking around the Strait of Hormuz? Well maybe the last is an over-embellishment since aircraft carriers tend to be powered by nuclear energy. Score that one for the environment.

The only logical reason not to build the Energy East pipeline is that the market doesn’t want or need it. And there could possibly be grains of truth to this argument, because the world’s petroleum business generally works quite well when produced oil is freely mobile to go wherever needed. Therefore, Saudi crude making its way to New Brunswick may seem simply like an efficient market at work.

But there’s more to it than that.

Few energy markets are truly efficient, or work without intervention of some kind. Even in the US, crude oil exports were banned for 40 years for political reasons, with exports just resuming a few months ago. Most nations have some sort of energy policy that is driven by how much the country produces relative to how much it needs.

Except Canada. Canada produces far more than it needs. Total Canadian productionis about 3.8 million barrels per day, while the country consumes about 2 million barrels per day. Western Canada produces most of the oil and gas (about 95 percent), while eastern Canada consumes most – Ontario and Quebec alone account for over half the nation’s total energy requirements. It is obvious that western Canada needs to move excess energy production, and that eastern Canada needs to import it. We could leave that to the free market to determine, which might mean all eastern Canadian oil would come from any exporting nation no matter how nefarious, or we could maximize the benefit to Canada. To do that requires thinking about how significant our energy resources truly are, to the whole country.

Western Canadian oil has an enormous economic impact on the nation. As Brett Wilson recently pointed out, we are a resource based nation, a function of our huge size, abundant resources, and relatively small population. These resources are important not just to Canadians but the whole world. In Canada, tax dollars from resource extraction goes a long way, including equalization between have and have-not provinces. It is in the nation’s best interests to maximize these resources. With western Canadian oil being landlocked, pipeline access to markets is in the best interests of all Canadians. Enabling Canadian resources to be utilized by other provinces is, from a national governing perspective, about the easiest decision a government should have to make.

TransCanada’s Energy East project would provide Canadian oil to Canadian refineries, and most of the pipeline is built already. All that is needed are pieces at each end. The project is welcome to New Brunswick in particular, for whom the pipeline will provide economic benefits as well securing a Canadian supply for the Irving refinery. It would also ensure Canadian oil supplies to refineries along the way in eastern Canada, further lessening the need to access foreign oil. Yet despite all of these benefits, Montreal objects to Energy East, calling it dangerous, even as mob-built overpasses fall on their heads and oil sands money finds its way into their daycare centres.

At the end of the day, consuming oil creates pollution. But globally, that is what we do – all of us, even environmentalists – to the tune of 90+ million barrels per day. Oil is produced in various parts of the world, and consumed in others, necessitating massive transportation schemes. Most nations, almost all, act in their self-interest to ensure adequate supplies of reasonably priced energy from reliable sources. And with such prolonged opposition to the Energy East pipeline, Canada, it appears, wishes to stand defiant of that club.

Regardless of free market oil pricing situations, it is nonsensical for Canada to be importing oil from unstable regions, when proper usage of Canada’s own resources would have multiple benefits to the country. There is no logical reason not to build the Energy East pipeline, and a lot of reasons in its favour.

Mr. Trudeau, you want infrastructure projects that will help the nation. Here is one that is half completed, won’t cost you a dime, is as safe as any other Canadian industrial project, and will benefit multiple diverse regions of the country. What more could you ask for? If you won’t help pay for it, then at least help clear the way.

[ganderblaster]

Why help the West when you can hurt it though?

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by ganderblaster

Why help the West when you can hurt it though?

Bingo. When you dump 8 billion tons of feces into a river and then say you don't want a pipeline because of your concern for the environment, it's pretty easy to see where the truth lies.

[Johnny G1]

Got to build a pipeline first to Eastern Canada but apparently the good people of Quebec and the rest of the people of Canada don't want to build them either no matter where they would be built. But they all want to drive and not walk, and Saudi oil is likely cheaper in the long run. I have a pipeline a 100 ft. from my door that needs expansion but you got some ass in Burnaby that don't want it in his back yard, and now you got a new leader that will side with the other people of this country { natives} so there goe's any chance of piping oil across this country, Just wished they could at least build the one beside me so I can go to work, at my age.

[petew]

lots of jobs to be had if they get a line east. Production and upgrading here, pipeline work across the country, and updating the refinery to handle synthetic crude. \Win Win all the way.

[CaberTosser]

Too bad about the refinery being so far off, it would be nice to have one in any of the prairie provinces, though the more westerly the better.

[petew]

Originally Posted by CaberTosser

Too bad about the refinery being so far off, it would be nice to have one in any of the prairie provinces, though the more westerly the better.

[Klondike]

Maybe the east will actually wake up when the equalization reaches zero in the next three years. Until then .........

[petew]

wonder why the Tories never got a line going east? Those refineries have been operating since the 50's and earlier.

[JimPS]

The Irving's are always about what's best for Irving Oil - first and what's best for New Brunswick - second and what's best for Canada third.

End of the day, they're a private company and they're not controlled by foreign multinationals.

The Energy East pipeline would be a win win for them and it should be a win win for Alberta and Canada.

In the meantime, if it's better for them to strike a deal with the Devil Saudi's than the Devil Alberta - they will.

Period.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by petew

wonder why the Tories never got a line going east? Those refineries have been operating since the 50's and earlier.

And, with much of traditional msnufacruring centres wallowing in depression, it would have been an astute economic investment. Albertans may not want to admit it, but they're awaking in the bed they've made. dong worry though, trump will buy your dirty oil once he gets 10,20,or 30... , and those eastern bastardized may negotiate once you have a taste of humility.

[Mangosteen]

Hey does everybody remember when the Klien guy told us the we will let the Eastern Creeps and Bums Freeze in the dark?

Now they are self sufficient and don't give a rats A** about the West.

Simple as that so no use crying in our corn flakes when they have already pi**ed in it.

It is what it is.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by Mangosteen

Hey does everybody remember when the Klien guy told us the we will let the Eastern Creeps and Bums Freeze in the dark?

Now they are self sufficient and don't give a rats A** about the West.

Simple as that so no use crying in our corn flakes when they have already pi**ed in it.

It is what it is.

The east is self sufficient? Did you seriously say that?

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by Mangosteen

Hey does everybody remember when the Klien guy told us the we will let the Eastern Creeps and Bums Freeze in the dark?

Now they are self sufficient and don't give a rats A** about the West.

Simple as that so no use crying in our corn flakes when they have already pi**ed in it.

It is what it is.

Perhaps they used the handouts from the west to get there?
So they took and took and took and now they are ....ok, and your fine with them not giving a ratz azsz about the west? Lol, we don't need you here. Go home. It's all good there now.

[79ford]

Canada probably has one of the most dysfunctional energy strategies on the planet.

Canada produces 4.2 million barrels/day and consumes roughly 1.7-1.9 million barrels per day. Canada also imports about 500-800k barrels per day.

Canada is also a net exporter of refined products yet we also import refined products.


The word phrase energy strategy has zero meaning in canada. Lol

[Deer Hunter]

Wikipedia "Oil Refineries"

Canada

Newfoundland and Labrador
North Atlantic Refinery, located in Come by Chance (North Atlantic Refining), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)

Nova Scotia
Imperial Oil Refinery - Dartmouth (Imperial Oil) (closed), 89,000 bbl/d (14,100 m3/d)

New Brunswick
Irving Oil Refinery - Saint John (Irving Oil), 300,000 bbl/d (48,000 m3/d)

Quebec
Montreal East (Shell Canada), 161,000 bbl/d (25,600 m3/d).
Montreal East Refinery (Shell Canada). On June 4, 2010, Shell Canada officially announced the commencement to downgrade the refinery into a terminal, following the unsuccessful attempt to find a buyer to take over the plant.[21]
Montreal (Suncor Energy), 140,000 bbl/d (22,000 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Petrofina refinery.
Montreal Refinery[22]Lévis (Ultramar(Valero)), 265,000 bbl/d (42,100 m3/d)[22]

Ontario
Nanticoke Refinery, Nanticoke - (Imperial Oil), 112,000 bbl/d (17,800 m3/d)
Sarnia (Imperial Oil), 115,000 bbl/d (18,300 m3/d)
Sarnia (Suncor Energy), 85,000 bbl/d (13,500 m3/d)
Corunna (Shell Canada), 72,000 bbl/d (11,400 m3/d)
Mississauga (Suncor Energy), 15,600 bbl/d (2,480 m3/d) - aka Clarkson Refinery - base oil production is 13,600 bbl/d (2,160 m3/d) of API Group II capacity and 2,000 bbl/d (320 m3/d) of API Group III capacity. Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009) and historically a Gulf refinery.

Saskatchewan
CCRL Refinery Complex, Regina (CRC)), 145,000 bbl/d (23,100 m3/d)

Upgraders (improve the quality of crude for sale at a higher price)
Husky Lloydminster Refinery, Lloydminster (Husky Energy), 25,000 bbl/d (4,000 m3/d)
Husky Lloydminster Upgrader Lloydminster (Husky Energy), 75,000 bbl/d (11,900 m3/d)

Alberta
Strathcona Refinery, Edmonton (Imperial Oil), 187,000 bbl/d (29,700 m3/d)
Scotford Refinery, Scotford (Shell Canada), 100,000 bbl/d (16,000 m3/d)
Edmonton (Suncor Energy), 135,000 bbl/d (21,500 m3/d). Formerly Petro-Canada (before Aug 2009)
North West Redwater Partnership Bitumen Refinery, Alberta Industrial Heartland (45 km NE of Edmonton), (North West Upgrading/Canadian Natural Upgrading). Phase 1: 50,000 bitumen bbl/d (7,900 bitumen m3/d)

Bitumen Upgraders (turn bitumen into synthetic crude, which then must be further refined)
Scotford Upgrader, Scotford (AOSP - Shell Canada 60%, Chevron Corporation 20%, Marathon Oil 20%), 250,000 bbl/d (40,000 m3/d) (located next to Shell Refinery) raw bitumen
Horizon Oil Sands, Fort McMurray (Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.), 110,000 bbl/d (17,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Long Lake, Fort McMurray (OPTI Canada Inc. 35% and Nexen Inc. 65%), 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Syncrude, Fort McMurray (Canadian Oil Sands Trust, Imperial Oil, Suncor, Nexen, Conoco Phillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen
Suncor, Fort McMurray (Suncor), 350,000 bbl/d (56,000 m3/d) raw bitumen

British Columbia
Burnaby Refinery, Burnaby (Chevron Corporation), 52,000 bbl/d (8,300 m3/d)
Prince George Refinery, Prince George (Husky Energy), 12,000 bbl/d (1,900 m3/d)

There are plenty of refineries in Western Canada already. What we truly need isn't a refinery, its a crude pipeline to the ocean. You would think that a province with one of the largest oil reserves in the world would have that figured out by now.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Wikipedia "Oil Refineries"



There are plenty of refineries in Western Canada already. What we truly need isn't a refinery, its a crude pipeline to the ocean. You would think that a province with one of the largest oil reserves in the world would have that figured out by now.

I'm not an environmentalist, but sounds pretty ominous.

[JustMe]

That is a good point... I wonder if Middle east oil is actually cheaper for the east coast refineries?

Originally Posted by Johnny G1

Got to build a pipeline first to Eastern Canada but apparently the good people of Quebec and the rest of the people of Canada don't want to build them either no matter where they would be built. But they all want to drive and not walk, and Saudi oil is likely cheaper in the long run. I have a pipeline a 100 ft. from my door that needs expansion but you got some ass in Burnaby that don't want it in his back yard, and now you got a new leader that will side with the other people of this country { natives} so there goe's any chance of piping oil across this country, Just wished they could at least build the one beside me so I can go to work, at my age.

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by JustMe

That is a good point... I wonder if Middle east oil is actually cheaper for the east coast refineries?

Good question. And if it is, perhaps Alberta can look at a few ways to become competitive.

[TripleTTT]

Originally Posted by JimPS

The Irving's are always about what's best for Irving Oil - first and what's best for New Brunswick - second and what's best for Canada third.

End of the day, they're a private company and they're not controlled by foreign multinationals.

The Energy East pipeline would be a win win for them and it should be a win win for Alberta and Canada.

In the meantime, if it's better for them to strike a deal with the Devil Saudi's than the Devil Alberta - they will.

Period.

Nailed it!

A West to East pipeline would be good for all of Canada... It might even make Canada a country.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by Deer Hunter

Wikipedia "Oil Refineries"



There are plenty of refineries in Western Canada already. What we truly need isn't a refinery, its a crude pipeline to the ocean. You would think that a province with one of the largest oil reserves in the world would have that figured out by now.

A PL to the coasts so we can slip stream raw product out and bypass all the value added processes that'd anchor jobs to Canada...brilliant

[Deer Hunter]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

A PL to the coasts so we can slip stream raw product out and bypass all the value added processes that'd anchor jobs to Canada...brilliant

Maybe have government subsidize some more refineries like the North West Redwater Partnership Bitumen Refinery???
Pass.

[Yaha Tinda]

Originally Posted by TripleTTT

Nailed it!

A West to East pipeline would be good for all of Canada... It might even make Canada a country.

So now you want to build a pipeline to the east huh.

[HoytCRX32]

Originally Posted by TripleTTT

Nailed it!

A West to East pipeline would be good for all of Canada... It might even make Canada a country.

I'm getting to the point of saying "****** it to the east...interesting point that nobody seems to hit...there is a seagoing port in Manitoba...Port Churchill

[TripleTTT]

Originally Posted by HoytCRX32

I'm getting to the point of saying "****** it to the east...interesting point that nobody seems to hit...there is a seagoing port in Manitoba...Port Churchill

Not going to happen. According to the website...http://churchillpolarbears.org/tag/port-of-churchill/

Also, ocean ice and oil tankers don't mix too well.

[elkhunter11]

I know the vice president and CEO of Irving quite well, after working for him for over 25 years at Fort McMurray. He must find it ironic that the company that Exxon drove him out of is struggling to survive, while his new company is doing much better. I doubt that it would hurt his feelings to be refining Saudi oil rather than our oilsands bitumem.

[winged1]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I know the vice president and CEO of Irving quite well, after working for him for over 25 years at Fort McMurray. He must find it ironic that the company that Exxon drove him out of is struggling to survive, while his new company is doing much better. I doubt that it would hurt his feelings to be refining Saudi oil rather than our oilsands bitumem.

I doubt he'd care where the source today, as the profits are on the sale side. It would make a big difference to Alberta though. Albertans are tuff. They can take a severe beating before anyone even mentions a national energy policy.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

I know the vice president and CEO of Irving quite well, after working for him for over 25 years at Fort McMurray. He must find it ironic that the company that Exxon drove him out of is struggling to survive, while his new company is doing much better. I doubt that it would hurt his feelings to be refining Saudi oil rather than our oilsands bitumem.

The same Saudis who are manipulating the market to drive North American producers out of the business. We're our own worst enemy.

Grizz

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by JimPS

The Irving's are always about what's best for Irving Oil - first and what's best for New Brunswick - second and what's best for Canada third.

End of the day, they're a private company and they're not controlled by foreign multinationals.

The Energy East pipeline would be a win win for them and it should be a win win for Alberta and Canada.

In the meantime, if it's better for them to strike a deal with the Devil Saudi's than the Devil Alberta - they will.

Period.

You are seriously delusional if you think that the Irvings give a crap about New Brunswick. It is simply the fiefdom from which they suck all life and nourishment from like the giant bloated parasite that the company is.

[JustMe]

That's what folks on here keep saying about the oil producers here in Alberta, it's all business, they have to be allowed to make a profit. I've heard it in rebuttal so many times, it has to be true!

Originally Posted by sjemac

You are seriously delusional if you think that the Irvings give a crap about New Brunswick. It is simply the fiefdom from which they suck all life and nourishment from like the giant bloated parasite that the company is.