Rio Tinto names Shell’s Katie Jackson as new copper chief
Jackson, who is the current president of National Grid Ventures, an energy group, joins Rio Tinto on September 1.
A blog entry on Alberta Oil Magazine’s website this week asks whether Alberta and Canada should not be paying more attention to political events in Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez, famous among other things for nationalizing the country’s gold industry, is facing stiff opposition from newcomer Henrique Capriles in upcoming presidential elections.
After 13 years in charge, Chavez’s health may also be failing.
Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves at just under 296 billion barrels, but under Chavez, the country’s output has actually decreased to 3 million barrels per day.
Darren Campbell writes in Alberta Oil Magazine:
And if Capriles can get his country’s act together when it comes to oil and gas production, Venezuela has a lot of oil, particularly heavy oil, that could flood the market and attract foreign investment at the expense of Alberta’s oil sands.
Foreign Policy sees a “geopolitical shakeup analogous to what has accompanied the rise of shale gas:”
Capriles has already said that, if elected, he will boost oil production. He also has suggested that foreign expertise will be permitted back into the country.
16 Comments
Dav1942
Canadian oil is far siperior to that from Venezuela!!! That is a fact.!!
Denise LaVolett
Response to Dav1942,
Please excuse my earlier typo.
What makes Canadian oil “far superior to that from Venezuela”. Please share the “fact” you speak of.
Regards,
Denise
Denise LaVolett
What makes is superior? Please share the “fact” you speak of.
Regards,
Denise
Larry Jaudon
I’m not sure how the title of this article was selected, because it had little to do with the content of the article.
As an Ametrican I can confidently say that the XL pipe-line will get approved. American would much rather buy petroleum products from our Canadian brothers than the thugs in the middle east or the socialist in Venezuela. Canada and the US are strong allies and we readily endorse supporting one anothers economy, especially something like petroleum. This is a perfect example of a supply and demand relationship, Canada can easily market all of their petroleum product to the US.
Be patient and let this political year play itself out, and you will see approval for the entire route. Right now I’d encourage moving full-steam-ahead with the Southern portion of the line, which does have necessary approval.
3051001
Larry — I love to support my southern Cousins (USA) but given the negative and often nasty comments from Americans on the Keystone I am inclined to agree with those who say “screw America” and lets build a pipeline to the west coast and ship the oil at full value – without the 30% discount to the States – and sell the oil to China or India
Better yet lets invest in more refineries and ship value added products
Sometimes America is like France – a wonderful and beautiful country filled with rich history – if it wasn’t for the people living there
Have a great week
Michelle
Larry I agree about the title. However, I can only imagine you have been expatriated overseas for the last few years because clearly special interests and lobbyist run this country, and what Americans want, (such as drillingin the US) is outright refused. Americans are denied, but the Feds did give socialist Brazilian company 2 Billion for Petrobras drilling. Cuba is planning on drilling 40 miles of the coast of Florida, and Uncle Sam doesn’t even blink an eyelash. Have you seen how this administration treats our allies?
With the ever increasing “Stimulus Package” reaching $821 Billion, clearly substantial portions are being recycled into political coffers, and with those amounts of money any opposition doesn’t stand a chance. We are Venezuela 15 years ago.
Larry Jaudon
Hello Michelle,
You are correct, I’m currently an expat in the Land Down Under, however this in no manner indicates that I’m uninformed. I also agree with you that the American government caters to special interest groups and the lobbyist with the loudest voice (most money), sadly this is not new and has been taking place for decades.
The Obama administration giving money to Petrobras is perplexing and unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is the fact the US Federal Government is unwilling/unable to develop a comprehensive Energy Bill. Democrats and Republicans both share in the culpability, not because they don’t know what’s right for the country from an energy standpoint, rather they both insist on catering to the special interest that they represent. The American populace will one day grow tired of this and then make the necessary changes, but that day isn’t today.
The real unanswered question for me is why the nation doesn’t develop a comprehensive national Energy Plan based on natural gas, of which the US holds identified reserves large enough to meet ALL the nations energy demands for the next 125 years.
Michelle, great discussion; I’ve enjoyed the interchange of ideas and opinions.
3051001
I hope it is so – so we can build the pipeline to the west coast and sell the oil to whoever without the 30% discount we offered the States
Looks great for us Canadians – more jobs, more profits, more security etc
By the way – when Venezuela screws the Americans around I think a 10% premium on the price would be acceptable
Michelle
The point is Americans no longer have a vote in this matter. Decisions are being made by Fat Cat market manipulators like George Soros, and shamelessly executed by our obedient Federal Government. Of course this is done under the guise of “eco-protection” and “green” preservation to decieve the peasants. Venezuela couldn’t possibly screw us any worse than our own government. As long as the markets are being manipulated by corruption, nothing can be trusted and there are no guarantees for any commodities.
Denise LaVolett
Response to 3051001,
You do understand the reason WHY we sold our product to the US at a substantial discount? Perhaps it has to do with the quality of our product and the additional refining cost in comparison tothat of light-sweet-crude. You do know what light-sweet-crudes is, don’t you?
As to your strategy of unilaterally raising our prices by 10% “when Venezuela screws the Americans”; did you arrive at this thought process by yourself or did other members of your third grade class offer their input? Perhaps we should just join the oil cartels of the middle east and use our product as a weapon to punish the evil Americans (sarcasm intended).
Just for the record, I for one wish to continue our trading relationship with the Americans; one which has helped to employ millions of Canadians. You may choose to jump in bed with the communist Chinese as a punishment to our American neighbors and ALLIES, but know this: YOUR BITTER ANTAGONISTIC ATTITUDE TOWARDS AMERICANS….DO NOT REFLECT THAT OF MOST CANADIANS ! ! !
Your attitude and comments are an embarrassment to your Country and do nothing more than show the depths of your ignorance. I truly believe that your ashamed of your own viewpoints, why else use an acronym such as 3051001. Do you find your comments and behaviours so petty that you are ashamed to use your own name.
3015001 = MORON
Biddulph Art
I really think that Canada should and will sell oil offshore and continue to sell to USA.
We in Canada will get 40.00 bbl. more off shore,which will push up the price USA pays.
Madskul
A guaranteed stable oil supply from Canada should stabilise oil/gasoline supply and prices in the USA because it would make the USA less vulnerable to oil supply shocks from unstable Venezuela and various middle Eastern countries. Canada should however make alternative arrangements to make oil available worldwide, especially to China, in case the USA “Democrat” eco-fascists prevail and refuse Canadian oil. International marketing will ensure Canada is fairly recompensed for its oil.
mark harder
Pricing in an unregulated market is a matter of supply and demand. An important datum, maybe one you know, is the degree by which Canadian crude will increase the global supply. 1%?, 10%, 25%? We could estimate this from comparing estimated future rates of production from Canada (bbl/day, say) with those of global sources. Obviously, if the Canadian production is only a small bump in the global rate, and we still must buy it mostly from the global pool, construction of the pipline will have little impact on the price we pay for fuel. On the other hand, if Canadian crude were dedicated to N. American markets, it would have a greater impact on domestic prices, since it would constitute a larger relative increase in domestic supplies. So you see how the numbers are crucial to the case for or against constructing the pipeline through the US.
Similarly, if the Canadian crude supply will only be a small bump in the global supply, and we are required to bid on the global to meet our needs, we will still be vulnerable to the machinations of suppliers outside the continent (NB. Canadian oil is still “foreign”. Ask a Canadian, if you don’t believe me.)
I don’t have to be an “eco-fascist” to know that there are always some risks, however small, to any project. A bridge may fall or a tsunami may damage a nuclear reactor, and a pipeline may spring a leak. Taking these risks is worthwhile if the benefits, by some measure or other, are greater. But if the pipeline creates no benefits for consumers, then no amount of risk is justified, from this consumer’s point of view at least.
I really don’t think I can put it any simpler than that. I’ll see if I can find the relevant data online.
mark harder
That said, I agree that greater diversity in global supplies buffers the market against fluctuations in any one input. The magnitude of this effect, however, still depends on the relative quantities of crude derived from each supplier. Whether Canadian oil is piped south or west doesn’t make a difference if it’s going abroad in either case.
Quarmby
Anyone want to bet that Henrique Capriles is killed in a bizzare and mysterious accident (car, plane or “other” crash) prior to the elections?
mark harder
I keep asking, and nobody seems to have an answer: Why should I care if Keystone goes THROUGH the US to the Gulf Coast instead of THROUGH Canada to the Pacific Coast? Either way, the oil will leave the US and Canada (my bet) and enter the global market for crude oil, where the tar sands are a drop in the proverbial bucket. We will still be paying the global market price for oil – ~$100, US – either way.
There will be a benefit to US consumers if the oil is refined in the US and sold here. In which case, it makes no sense (to me at least) to pipe it a 1000 mi. through a pipe that is politically controversial and expensive when it could be refined in Canada or in the northern tier of US states and the products distributed domestically.
Take Billings, Montana for example. There are already 2 refineries in Billings – a 720 acre ExxonMobil refinery and a 200 acre Conoco Phillips refinery. And Conoco? Guess what. Conoco already owns oil sands in Alberta! Why don’t they refine their own oil in their own refinery? Granted, they probably will need to expand this rather small facility and that will cost $$$. But on the other hand, the crude will only have to be piped across MT, not the US.
My best guess: Piping and shipping from Houston will be more profitable to the energy corporations involved than marketing in the US, but will have no influence whatever on US fuel prices. So again, why should we even think of permitting the Keystone project when there is even the slightest risk of environmental damage, if there is no benefit to domestic consumers???