Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TransCanada unveils pipeline construction program
Calgary Herald ^ | April 25, 2008 | Gordon Jaremko, Edmonton Journal

Posted on 04/27/2008 4:56:11 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

EDMONTON - TransCanada Corp. alone plans to ship more than one million barrels a day of oilsands production to the United States with an expanded pipeline construction program unveiled today.

The Alberta oil and gas delivery mainstay added a second leg to its new Keystone export service that would more than double the system's capacity and extend it to the Texas coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

TransCanada president Hal Kvisle said the added route is a companion instead of competition for projects underway by Enbridge Inc., which is also advancing more than one million barrels daily in new oilsands export routes.

"It's not either or," Kvisle said after TransCanada pipeline chief Russ Girling reminded a conference call for financial analysts and media that the oilsands rush spells strong Alberta production growth until at least 2020.

The new project was disclosed as TransCanada starts building the first Keystone leg, a $5.2-billion line to deliver about 600,000 barrels daily to the Cushing oil trading hub in Oklahoma. Deliveries begin in late 2009 or early 2010.

Construction is underway in the U.S. Work is scheduled to begin soon in Canada after the firm finishes spring hearings on route details before the National Energy Board for landowners along the right-of-way in southern Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

The NEB approved Keystone's first leg over heated protests by labour unions and Alberta opposition parties during the winter provincial election.

Critics predicted the project will export 18,000 jobs in resource processing to new or expanded bitumen upgrader plants in the U.S. Alberta Conservatives made no move to oppose Keystone at the NEB despite a declared goal of upgrading bitumen into premium light oil and refined products in the province.

Separate federal approval will eventually be sought for the second and bigger Keystone leg.

The added export service is being designed with larger pipe capable of flowing 750,000 barrels daily on a direct route to refineries clustered east of Houston in the Port Arthur area.

Costs are forecast to be 20-30 per cent higher than for the first Keystone leg, or about $6.2 billion to $6.8 billion. A target date for deliveries will be set following industry discussions this spring and summer.

Shipping tolls are projected to exceed $6 a barrel, making costs of sending oilsands output to southern Texas about six times higher than the freight to traditional Alberta outlets in Ontario and the Chicago region.

But TransCanada has predicted even the increased delivery expense will only be a fraction of price gains that Alberta exports stand to gain by going to one of the world's biggest oil trading areas.

Texas and Louisiana refineries buy about 7.7 million barrels a day from Mexico, Venezuela and the Middle East. Latin American output is shrinking due to natural depletion of aging wells and disputes with industry over resource ownership, royalties and taxes.

Southern U.S. refineries import heavy oil akin to Alberta bitumen. Their price discounts are only about half the penalties - as much as 50 per cent off the world benchmark grades of light oil, Brent and West Texas Intermediate - charged against low quality crude in the Chicago region, TransCanada has estimated.

At current international prices Alberta bitumen that reaches the Gulf of Mexico stands to gain $40 to $60 a barrel. Provincial royalties would also increase because their rates rise when prices go up.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Government; News/Current Events; US: Oklahoma; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: alberta; bitumen; canada; chicago; crude; energy; gulfofmexico; keystone; keystonepipeline; keystonexl; la; louisiana; manitoba; mexico; middleeast; oil; oilsands; ok; oklahoma; ontario; pipeline; refineries; saskatchewan; texas; transcanada; tx; venezuela
Those oilsands are crankin' up, baby!
1 posted on 04/27/2008 4:56:14 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fanfan; GMMAC

PING!


2 posted on 04/27/2008 4:56:40 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (To the liberal, there's no sacrifice too big for somebody else to make. --FReeper popdonnelly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I'm surprised the moonbats in Canada aren't screaming.
3 posted on 04/27/2008 5:02:38 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are probably the conservative provinces....especially Alberta where the tar sands are.....and Sask NEEDS the money, and probably Manitoba, too.....


4 posted on 04/27/2008 5:05:39 PM PDT by goodnesswins (20 is the new 10)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Watch what happens to the spot price of oil in tomorrow’s trading...should be interesting!


5 posted on 04/27/2008 5:05:39 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

I’m surprised that our Congress hasn’t stop it ... since it’s not part of their National Energy Program.


6 posted on 04/27/2008 5:06:34 PM PDT by K-oneTexas (I'm not a judge and there ain't enough of me to be a jury. (Zell Miller, A National Party No More))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
I'm surprised the moonbats in Canada aren't screaming.

Apparently they did, but common sense prevailed.

The NEB approved Keystone's first leg over heated protests by labour unions and Alberta opposition parties during the winter provincial election.

7 posted on 04/27/2008 5:18:13 PM PDT by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

If congress has it’s way they won’t be shipping one barrel of tar sands oil to the US much less 1 million.


8 posted on 04/27/2008 5:22:17 PM PDT by saganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

So am I seeing that it’s a lot faster to build an oil pipeline than a border fence?


9 posted on 04/27/2008 5:28:18 PM PDT by Aria (NO RAPIST ENABLER FOR PRESIDENT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack

stock price of this company spiked 50 cents for a few minutes at the mkt open friday as the earnings call progressed, then settled back to what it had been......investors ain’t impressed......this is as iffy as the BAKKEN shale imo

chart:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TRP&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
article:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080425/0390525.html


10 posted on 04/27/2008 5:35:57 PM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68 (CALL CONGRESSCRITTERS TOLL-FREE @ 1-800-965-4701)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: K-oneTexas

“I’m surprised that our Congress hasn’t stop it”

Both Clinton and Obama as well as most Democrats in Congress and the Senate have said they are against NAFTA and would cancel the agreement. This could cause Canadian oil to go to another market.


11 posted on 04/27/2008 5:37:36 PM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: All

Great Idea, ship it from Canada to Texas and then back up to the nortern states as gas and diesel. Makes sense to me, who wants a stinky old refinery up in the northern states when we can keep them pipelines piping. Maybe I’m missing something here? :( :(


12 posted on 04/27/2008 5:39:48 PM PDT by MSRiverdog (The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer

Besides moonbats there are the Lubicon (read aboriginals), U.N. Human Rights Commission (”all aboriginals are oppressed”), Kairos (a religious group, who knows, they’re against it).
All oil is bad and the infernal contraptions that carry it, it seems. Moonbattery.


13 posted on 04/27/2008 5:50:03 PM PDT by count-your-change (you don't have to be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

NAFTA needs to be stopped. It is killing America. sarc


14 posted on 04/27/2008 5:50:25 PM PDT by impimp1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

If you mean “conservative provinces” in the sense that they over tax and over spend, then yes, they are conservative provinces. Alberta can hide their deficit spending behind the oil boom. Not sure about the other two.


15 posted on 04/27/2008 5:57:27 PM PDT by deadrock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DEADROCK

Saskatchewan is booming like never before. Potash revenue.


16 posted on 04/27/2008 6:44:00 PM PDT by balk (thefightnetwork.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68

It will still be interesting to see what happens to the spot price of oil, not stocks, tomorrow.


17 posted on 04/27/2008 8:42:03 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MSRiverdog
You might have missed this part:

Southern U.S. refineries import heavy oil akin to Alberta bitumen. Their price discounts are only about half the penalties - as much as 50 per cent off the world benchmark grades of light oil, Brent and West Texas Intermediate - charged against low quality crude in the Chicago region, TransCanada has estimated.

Refineries in Texas and Louisiana are set up to refine heavy oil like the Orinoco crude from Venezuela. Refineries around Chicago are not; perhaps it is too difficult for them to get through the state and federal regulatory processes. The building of this pipeline will enable Alberta (and Saskatchewan, where oil production is increasing) to sell in Texas and Louisiana, where they can get a significantly higher price for their product than they can in Chicago.

Some readers here may be wondering why Canada and the U.S. aren't already connected by a web of pipelines -- after all, they're not enemies, there's a lot of oil and gas produced on both sides of a long border, and it's all free of OPEC boycotts, Hugo Chavez, and Middle Eastern political issues. The reason that such pipelines don't exist already is that the U.S. Congress blocked them in order to maximize profits for oil and gas producers in the northern states. Many politicians participated; one who was particularly notable is Montana Senator Max Baucus. This was one of the reasons that Canada's Conservative Party federal government of the 1980s became interested in negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S. The so-called "Super 301" legislation was used to impose sudden blockouts of Canadian energy and agricultural products. This benefited oil, gas and agricultural interests in places like Montana and North Dakota at the expense of American consumers in general.

18 posted on 04/27/2008 10:17:54 PM PDT by TheMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; GMMAC; Clive; exg; kanawa; conniew; backhoe; -YYZ-; Former Proud Canadian; ..

19 posted on 04/28/2008 4:36:12 AM PDT by fanfan ("We don't start fights my friends, but we finish them, and never leave until our work is done."PMSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; ...
Fine with me. Second, trans mountain pipe capacity and a tanker port like Karg Island sufficient to enable Canada to materially increase exports oil and gas by sea.

The first so that the petrol that I burn in my car would be produced from Alberta crude instead of overseas crude.

The second as a hedge so that we can divert our exports to the Pacific Rim in the event that the Democrats win in November and carry out their plan to uniaterally "renegotiate" NAFTA/

A unilateral "renegotiation" is just a euphamism for abrogating it. This would discharge Canada from performance of it and free us to sell our oil and gas to the highest bidder without regard to the constraints contained in NAFTA.

20 posted on 04/28/2008 4:55:45 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; ...
OOPS, disregard my earlier reply. BAD FORMATTING. Substitute this:

Fine with me.

But I would like to see two other pipeline policies.

First, pipe capacity to enable eastern Canada to stop importing oil from overseas.

Second, trans mountain pipe capacity and a tanker port like Karg Island sufficient to enable Canada to materially increase exports oil and gas by sea.

The first so that the petrol that I burn in my car would be produced from Alberta crude instead of overseas crude.

The second as a hedge so that we can divert our exports to the Pacific Rim in the event that the Democrats win in November and carry out their plan to uniaterally "renegotiate" NAFTA.

A unilateral "renegotiation" is just a euphamism for abrogating it. This would discharge Canada from performance of it and free us to sell our oil and gas to the highest bidder without regard to the constraints contained in NAFTA.

21 posted on 04/28/2008 4:58:25 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: econjack
econjack wrote: It will still be interesting to see what happens to the spot price of oil, not stocks, tomorrow.

Not much happened.

22 posted on 04/28/2008 7:05:20 PM PDT by JBGUSA (If it's us or them, I choose us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson