• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

Saturday, 02 Jul 2011 05:04 PM

By Jim Meyers

The Obama administration is foot-dragging on approving a pipeline to deliver abundant Canadian oil to the United States at the same time the Chinese are investing in a pipeline that could send that oil to China.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee last week passed a bill requiring President Barack Obama to speed up a decision on approving the pipeline. The bill was introduced by Nebraska Republican Rep. Lee Terry, who maintains that the Obama administration has been too slow in making a final decision, the Barack Obama, Fred Upton, China, OilMontreal Gazette reports.

The Canadian province of Alberta has the world’s third-largest oil reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, and more than Russia or Iran. Daily production from oil sands is expected to rise from 1.5 million barrels today to 3.7 million in 2025.

Delivering the oil will mean building two pipelines, one south to the refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast and the other west toward the Pacific, where it can be exported to China.

If the United States doesn’t approve its pipeline promptly due to environmental concerns, “Canada might increasingly look to China, thinking America doesn’t want a big stake in what environmentalists call ‘dirty oil,’ which they say increases greenhouse gas emissions,” according to a report from The Associated Press.

Sinopec, a Chinese-controlled company, has invested $5.5 billion in the planned pipeline to the Pacific coast.

Sinopec has also paid $4.6 billion for a stake in Syncrude, Canada’s largest oil-sands project, and PetroChina, Asia’s largest oil and gas company, bought a $1.7 billion stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

According to Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach, American government officials have expressed concerns about the Pacific pipeline delivering oil to China that might have otherwise gone to the United States.

Rep. Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican who is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, told Newsmax in an interview last week that the pipeline project could create 100,000 jobs and said: “Why is it that we’re not working with Canada, which will be producing more than 3 or 4 million barrels a day from oil sand, and we’ve stalled on the application to build a pipeline?

“If we continue to say we may not be interested, Canada is going to turn around and build that pipeline not to the United States but instead to Vancouver, and they’re going to be selling it off to China.”

Environmentalist groups have urged Obama to reject the pipeline project. They assert that extracting oil from oil sands requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases emissions and threatens rivers and forests.

But Michael A. Levi, senior fellow for energy and the environment at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that environmentalists are exaggerating the dangers of oil sand extraction.

“A lot of people have been convinced that this is the cutting edge of the climate change fight,” he said. “In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of U.S. Emissions.”

And a report commissioned by the Obama administration suggests that the pipeline to Texas, along with a reduction in overall U.S. oil demand, “could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports long term.”

The State Department, which must approve the pipeline, has promised a decision by the end of the year, although Republicans wants it sooner.

And Upton told Newsmax that the bill his committee passed last week “is expected on the House floor as early as next month.”

David Goldwyn, a former State Department energy official who left this year to work as a consultant, said he believes the pipeline will ultimately be approved, according to the AP.

“I think it would be a huge waste of a great opportunity to provide supply security,” he said. “We don’t often get the choice of where we can get our oil from. In this case we get to choose Canada. That’s an opportunity we shouldn’t miss.”

And Russell Girling, CEO of TransCanada, the company that would build the pipeline, says opponents of the project are in fact set on targeting Canadian oil sands.

“The real issue here is those opposed to the Canadian oil sands believe that by delaying or denying this permit somehow they will slow down the development of Canadian oil sands,” he told the Business News Network.

“That’s an unrealistic expectation — the Canadian oil sands will get developed, irrespective of this pipeline.”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/BarackObama-FredUpton-China-Oil/2011/07/02/id/402295?s=al&promo_code=C8BF-1
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
“A lot of people have been convinced that this is the cutting edge of the climate change fight,” he said.

even if you believe all the climate garbage.. does pollutants in China impact the environment less then pollutants from the US?

I would even go as far as to say.. I bet we can burn Canadian oil cleaner then China.. so common sense would be to ship it here..
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2005
Messages
28,695
Reaction score
16
Location
NE WY at the foot of the Big Horn mountains
"Common sense?"
The Obama administration has none.

We get most of our oil from Canada, but you never
hear much about this on the MSM. What a tragedy
if this oil goes to China instead of the USA.
One more thing to have to overcome. Just how much
can we stand? Anyone that doesn't believe Obama
is trying to break America's back is deaf, dumb and blind.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
wasn't there talk awhile back of putting a refinery in North Dakota..

wouldn't that make more sense...
 

Silver

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,144
Reaction score
12
Location
BC
It would make the most sense to put the refinery in Alberta. It drives me nuts seeing jobs run out of this country via pipelines, rail cars, logging trucks, etc.
 

Trinity man

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
1,247
Reaction score
0
Location
Guy Store, Texas
Why in the world would the US let china build a pipeline to our west coast then ship it to China. If they want it then they should have to build it in Canada or we charge them for every barrel that runs though our county. :mad: Thats what wrong to many environmentalists telling us whats good and bad. They drive all over the county burning more dirt oil than anyone else, then telling us its bad. Maybe they need to start walking and the sky would clear up, because they aren't driving the big gas drinkers.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Trinity man said:
Why in the world would the US let china build a pipeline to our west coast then ship it to China. If they want it then they should have to build it in Canada or we charge them for every barrel that runs though our county. :mad: Thats what wrong to many environmentalists telling us whats good and bad. They drive all over the county burning more dirt oil than anyone else, then telling us its bad. Maybe they need to start walking and the sky would clear up, because they aren't driving the big gas drinkers.

I'm not sure the article was clear on this. The pipeline being built to the West Coast, would be in Canada, so oil can be shipped to Asia.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The Great Oil Deception by Lindsey Williams
From the Book Energy Non-Crisis

There is no true energy crisis. There never has been an energy crisis . . . except as it has been produced by the Federal government for the purpose of controlling the American people. That's a rather dramatic statement to make, isn't it? But you see, at one time I too thought there was an energy crisis. After all, that was what I had been told by the news media and by the Federal government. I thought we were running out of crude oil and natural gas. Then I heard, I saw, and I experienced what I am about to write. I soon came to realize that there is no energy crisis. There is no need for America to go cold or for gas to be rationed. We shall verify these statements as we provide the facts for you. You might be surprised to find that we will also show why the price of gas will remain high, and in fact will go higher than it is now.

You've read about the controversy. You've heard the statements, the claims, the counterclaims. You've read about the problems of environmental protection, such as the need to protect birds whose species are becoming extinct. What you haven't heard is that $2 million dollars was spent to go around the nest of one species. On your property, you'd have moved the nest—not so on the Alaska Pipeline. Not true? Questionable? We'll give you the facts.
You've read about the objections of the native Alaskans whose territory is being exploited by those giant corporations that can never be satisfied. You've heard about the excessive profits made by the oil companies. But you haven't heard about the incredible regulations that forced the costs of the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline up from a projected $2 billion dollars to beyond $12 billion dollars. We'll tell you more about that.

I became convinced of the fact that there is no energy crisis when Senator Hugh Chance visited me on the pipeline. As well as being a former Senator of the State of Colorado, he is also an outstanding Christian gentleman. He came to the pipeline at my invitation, to speak in the work camps for which I was responsible as Chaplain, on the northern sector of the Trans-Alaska Oil pipeline.

While I was there I arranged for him to have a tour of the Prudhoe Bay facility. Senator Chance was shown everything he wanted to see, and he was told everything he wanted to know. The Senator was given information by a number of highly-placed responsible executives with Atlantic Richfield, and these were cooperative with him at all times. He especially gained information from one particular official whom we shall call Mr. X, because of the obvious need to protect his anonymity.

After Senator Chance had talked at length with Mr. X, we came back to my dormitory room at Pump Station No. 1 and sat down. Senator Chance said to me, "Lindsey, I can hardly believe what I have seen and heard today."

I waited to see what it was that was so startling. Remember, as yet I had no inkling that there was, in fact, no true energy crisis.

Senator Chance was very serious. He was obviously disturbed. He looked up at me as he said, "Lindsey, I was in the Senate of the State of Colorado when the Federal briefers came to inform us as to why there is an energy crisis. Lindsey, what I have heard and seen today, compared with what I was told in the Senate of the State of Colorado, makes me realize that almost everything I was told by those Federal briefers was a downright lie!"

At that point Senator Chance asked if I could arrange for another interview with Mr. X on the following day. I did arrange for that interview, and the Senator and Mr. X sat in Mr. X's office. I was allowed to be present, as Senator Hugh Chance asked question after question after question.

Senator Chance's first question was, "Mr. X, how much crude oil is there under the North Slope of Alaska, in your estimation?"

Mr. X answered, "In my estimation, from the seismographic work and the drillings we have already done, I am convinced that there is as much oil under the North Slope of Alaska as there is in all of Saudi Arabia."

Senator Hugh Chance's next question was perhaps an obvious one. "Why isn't this oil being produced, if there is an oil crisis?" He went on to point out that private enterprise has always come to the rescue of the American people when there have been times of need.

Mr. X then made the startling observation that the Federal government and the State government of Alaska had allowed only one pool of oil on the North Slope of Alaska to be developed.
Senator Chance then asked, "Mr. X, do you think that there are numerous pools of oil under the North Slope of Alaska?"

Mr. X replied, "Senator Chance, the government has allowed us to develop only one 100-square-mile area of this vast North Slope. There are many, many 100-square-mile areas under the North Slope of Alaska which contain oil. There are many pools of oil under the North Slope of Alaska."

The Senator then asked, "Mr. X, what do you think the Federal government is out to do—what do you really think the government has as its ultimate goal in this business?"

Mr. X's answer was highly controversial in its implications. He stated, "I personally believe that the Federal government is out to declare American Telephone and Telegraph a monopoly. In so doing they will be able to divide the company and to break the back of the largest private enterprise on the face of the earth. Secondly, they want to nationalize the oil companies. I believe that these two objectives merge." As Mr. X continued to elaborate his point of view, it became clear that the objectives, as he saw them, were of dramatic import for the economic welfare of this country and indeed for the whole world.

Senator Chance asked one last question, "Mr. X, if what you say is true, then why don't you as oil companies tell the American people the truth and warn them? "

"Senator Chance," Mr. X replied, "we don't dare tell the American people the truth because there are so many laws already passed and regulations on the books that if the government decided to impose them all on us and enforce them, they could put us into bankruptcy within six months."

In light of what Mr. X stated in that conversation with Senator Chance, it would seem that the stakes are even bigger than money. They would involve power and domination—initially under the guise of government ownership and control of not only the essential commodities and services, but then progressively beyond that. We would call it socialism. Others would give it different names. In the light of Mr. X's statements, that is the direction in which America is being led post-haste today. This book is an attempt to awaken the public to the facts before it is too late.

Mr. X is a man whose observations must be taken seriously. He was one of the numerous executives with Atlantic Richfield who was given the responsibility of developing the entire East side of the oil field at Prudhoe Bay. His credibility cannot be denied. Mr. X has developed numerous oil fields for Atlantic Richfield throughout the world and has built numerous refineries. He is an expert in this field.

So far we have given you just a few side observations. But there is more. Much more. We have a story that must be told. There are tremendously important matters involved—matters of principle and the concepts highly important to our whole way of life. They involve politics, economics, and our American way of life.
Keep reading!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Silver said:
It would make the most sense to put the refinery in Alberta. It drives me nuts seeing jobs run out of this country via pipelines, rail cars, logging trucks, etc.

Yep, it's about time.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Buyer said:
They better think long and hard about this. The pipe line will go right over the ogallala aquifer. Not a good idea.

I think it is time to look at pipelines and make sensible safety changes ..

but to bow to the environmentalists is to get nothing done..

Pipeline Rupture Spews Oil Down Yellowstone River
Tens of thousands of gallons of crude oil has spread across Montana's famous waterway.

A pipeline rupture Friday night released an estimated 1,000 barrels, or 42,000 gallons of oil.
Fast flows and floodwaters along the river have spread the oil slick 100 miles from the source of the spill.


The break in the pipe near Laurel, Mont., forced an immediate evacuation of about 140 people from the town to protect them from possible explosions and dangerous fumes. While the fumes have dissipated to safer levels, the smell of the oil still permeates the air downstream and 12 miles to the east through the city of Billings, where the oil pipeline terminates. ExxonMobile, Cenex Harvest Refinery and Conoco Phillips all have refineries in Billings. The 12-inch diameter ExxonMobile pipe that ruptured was buried six feet below the riverbed and carrying crude oil from Belfry, Mont.

ExxonMobile clean-up crews from the Billings refinery laid out absorbent material and booms along the banks and across the Yellowstone River on Saturday, but the fast flows and flooding has hampered efforts to contain the spread.

while the problem seems devistating the solutions isn't to just not build pipelines..

six feet wasn't deep enough, maybe twelve is under a river.. .. and in sensitive areas it should be double-walled ,...
 

Trinity man

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
1,247
Reaction score
0
Location
Guy Store, Texas
hypocritexposer said:
Trinity man said:
Why in the world would the US let china build a pipeline to our west coast then ship it to China. If they want it then they should have to build it in Canada or we charge them for every barrel that runs though our county. :mad: Thats what wrong to many environmentalists telling us whats good and bad. They drive all over the county burning more dirt oil than anyone else, then telling us its bad. Maybe they need to start walking and the sky would clear up, because they aren't driving the big gas drinkers.

I'm not sure the article was clear on this. The pipeline being built to the West Coast, would be in Canada, so oil can be shipped to Asia.


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Trinity man said:
hypocritexposer said:
Trinity man said:
Why in the world would the US let china build a pipeline to our west coast then ship it to China. If they want it then they should have to build it in Canada or we charge them for every barrel that runs though our county. :mad: Thats what wrong to many environmentalists telling us whats good and bad. They drive all over the county burning more dirt oil than anyone else, then telling us its bad. Maybe they need to start walking and the sky would clear up, because they aren't driving the big gas drinkers.

I'm not sure the article was clear on this. The pipeline being built to the West Coast, would be in Canada, so oil can be shipped to Asia.


:oops: :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:

as far as I know, the building of the TMX, Trans Mountain Exchange has already begun.

North American Construction Group has already started laying a 36 inch pipe across Jasper National Park and Mount Robson Park. I believe it begins at one of the Ft. Sask. (Edmonton), oilsands upgrader facilities
 

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,482
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
JUne 25, 2011 Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan drawn up by the Alberta-based Enbridge company to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China's other big oil company, and China's largest banks.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Mike said:
JUne 25, 2011 Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan drawn up by the Alberta-based Enbridge company to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China's other big oil company, and China's largest banks.


Thanks Mike. this must be a 2nd pipeline, in addition to the TMX, to the West Coast from Alberta.

edited to add: Unless they have renamed the TMX, with an ownership change, that's a possibility, but I don't think so, due to the TMX being partly built already.
 

lightninboy

Well-known member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
681
Reaction score
0
Location
NE South Dakota
China Fuels Its Ravenous Appetite for Coal
30 Dec 2010
By George Will
Cowlitz County in Washington state is across the Columbia River from Portland, Ore., which promotes mass transit and urban density and is a green reproach to the rest of us.

Recently, Cowlitz did something that might make Portland wonder whether shrinking its carbon footprint matters. Cowlitz approved construction of a coal export terminal from which millions of tons of U.S. coal could be shipped to Asia annually.

If the future belongs to electric cars, those in China may run on energy currently stored beneath Wyoming and Montana.

http://www.newsmax.com/GeorgeWill/China-coal-carbonfootprint-globalwarming/2010/12/30/id/381435
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
5,855
Reaction score
0
Location
Venezuela
Buyer said:
They better think long and hard about this. The pipe line will go right over the ogallala aquifer. Not a good idea.

There are thousands of pipelines criss-crossing the US. I don't recall a single aquifer ever being contaminated by a pipeline.

These are just the natural gas pipelines:



Here's a map of some of the major oil and gas pipelines.....green for oil, red for gas, blue for products.

 

Latest posts

Top