Biden revokes KXL permit in blow to Canada's oil sector, Ottawa disappointed

[webfact]

Biden revokes KXL permit in blow to Canada's oil sector, Ottawa disappointed

By Rod Nickel and Nia Williams

 

FILE PHOTO: A depot used to store pipes for the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline is seen in Gascoyne, North Dakota, January 25, 2017. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester/File Photo

 

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday formally revoked the permit needed to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline (KXL), dashing Ottawa's hopes of salvaging the $8 billion project that the struggling Canadian crude sector has long supported.

 

The move represents another set-back for the beleaguered Canadian energy industry, kills thousands of jobs and marks an early bump in Biden's relationship with Canada, a key trading partner. Biden had long promised to scrap the permit.

 

Kirsten Hillman, Canada's ambassador to Washington, told CTV that Ottawa was "very disappointed." Foreign Minister Marc Garneau, speaking minutes earlier, took a more muted tone, telling CTV that Canada respected and understood the decision.

 

Keystone XL, owned by TC Energy Corp, is already under construction in Canada, and would carry 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta oil sands crude to Nebraska. Opposition from U.S. landowners, Native American tribes and environmentalists has delayed the project for the past 12 years.

 

Former Republican President Donald Trump revived the project, but it still faced ongoing legal challenges.

 

TC Energy, in a statement issued before the revocation, expressed disappointment with a move it said would overturn a regulatory process that had lasted more than a decade.

 

The Calgary-based company said it will suspend construction and warned there could be a "substantive" predominantly non-cash, after-tax charge to earnings in the first quarter of 2021. TC Energy said the decision would lead to layoffs for thousands of unionized construction workers.

 

TC Energy stock closed down 1.2% at C$55.92 in Toronto while the benchmark Canadian share index edged up 0.3%

 

"Killing 10,000 jobs and taking $2.2 billion in payroll out of workers' pockets is not what Americans need or want right now," Association of Oil Pipe Lines Chief Executive Andy Black said.

 

Canada, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, ships most of that output to U.S. refineries. In 2019, the U.S. brought in 3.8 million bpd from Canada, more than half its daily imports of 6.8 million bpd.

 

Canadian producers, who have struggled for years from low prices partly related to sometimes-congested pipelines, have long supported KXL.

 

Producer Suncor Energy said it backed expanding market access to the U.S. through pipelines like KXL, which would provide responsibly sourced oil to U.S. refineries for the benefit of U.S. consumers.

 

But a Canada Energy Regulator report in November report said western Canadian crude exports are expected to remain below total pipeline capacity over the next 30 years if KXL and two other projects proceed, prompting environmental groups to question the need for all three.

 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday that Canada was pressing people at the highest levels of Biden's incoming administration to reconsider canceling the project.

 

Canadian Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Tuesday expressed optimism the two countries could work cooperatively in areas such as clean electricity, decarbonization of industry, transportation and methane emissions.

 

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney threatened legal action on Monday if Keystone XL was scrapped.

 

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and David Ljunggren in Washington; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Jonathan Oatis and Marguerita Choy)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-01-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

[1Gringo]

good.

 

if Canada wants/needs that nasty, dirty sludge turned into gas, then Canada should just build a refinery next to the supply.

[Jeffr2]

Quote

"Killing 10,000 jobs and taking $2.2 billion in payroll out of workers' pockets is not what Americans need or want right now," Association of Oil Pipe Lines Chief Executive Andy Black said.

10,000 temporary jobs.  Not very many permanent ones, and lots of potential for environmental damage. 

 

Great decision.  Let's pursue green options instead.

[vandeventer]

Just another stupid thing he is doing for the greenies. Yes we want more and more wind power and more and more dead birds.

[Sujo]

18 minutes ago, vandeventer said:

Just another stupid thing he is doing for the greenies. Yes we want more and more wind power and more and more dead birds.

Dont forget the cancer from the windmills.

[chilli42]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Biden revokes KXL permit in blow to Canada's oil sector, Ottawa disappointed

By Rod Nickel and Nia Williams

 

FILE PHOTO: A depot used to store pipes for the planned Keystone XL oil pipeline is seen in Gascoyne, North Dakota, January 25, 2017. REUTERS/Terray Sylvester/File Photo

 

CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) - U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday formally revoked the permit needed to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline (KXL), dashing Ottawa's hopes of salvaging the $8 billion project that the struggling Canadian crude sector has long supported.

 

The move represents another set-back for the beleaguered Canadian energy industry, kills thousands of jobs and marks an early bump in Biden's relationship with Canada, a key trading partner. Biden had long promised to scrap the permit.

 

Kirsten Hillman, Canada's ambassador to Washington, told CTV that Ottawa was "very disappointed." Foreign Minister Marc Garneau, speaking minutes earlier, took a more muted tone, telling CTV that Canada respected and understood the decision.

 

Keystone XL, owned by TC Energy Corp, is already under construction in Canada, and would carry 830,000 barrels per day of Alberta oil sands crude to Nebraska. Opposition from U.S. landowners, Native American tribes and environmentalists has delayed the project for the past 12 years.

 

Former Republican President Donald Trump revived the project, but it still faced ongoing legal challenges.

 

TC Energy, in a statement issued before the revocation, expressed disappointment with a move it said would overturn a regulatory process that had lasted more than a decade.

 

The Calgary-based company said it will suspend construction and warned there could be a "substantive" predominantly non-cash, after-tax charge to earnings in the first quarter of 2021. TC Energy said the decision would lead to layoffs for thousands of unionized construction workers.

 

TC Energy stock closed down 1.2% at C$55.92 in Toronto while the benchmark Canadian share index edged up 0.3%

 

"Killing 10,000 jobs and taking $2.2 billion in payroll out of workers' pockets is not what Americans need or want right now," Association of Oil Pipe Lines Chief Executive Andy Black said.

 

Canada, the world's fourth-largest crude producer, ships most of that output to U.S. refineries. In 2019, the U.S. brought in 3.8 million bpd from Canada, more than half its daily imports of 6.8 million bpd.

 

Canadian producers, who have struggled for years from low prices partly related to sometimes-congested pipelines, have long supported KXL.

 

Producer Suncor Energy said it backed expanding market access to the U.S. through pipelines like KXL, which would provide responsibly sourced oil to U.S. refineries for the benefit of U.S. consumers.

 

But a Canada Energy Regulator report in November report said western Canadian crude exports are expected to remain below total pipeline capacity over the next 30 years if KXL and two other projects proceed, prompting environmental groups to question the need for all three.

 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Tuesday that Canada was pressing people at the highest levels of Biden's incoming administration to reconsider canceling the project.

 

Canadian Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Tuesday expressed optimism the two countries could work cooperatively in areas such as clean electricity, decarbonization of industry, transportation and methane emissions.

 

Alberta Premier Jason Kenney threatened legal action on Monday if Keystone XL was scrapped.

 

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington and David Ljunggren in Washington; Editing by Steve Orlofsky, Jonathan Oatis and Marguerita Choy)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2021-01-21

 

- Whatever you're going through, the Samaritans are here for you

- Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking COVID-19 updates

It’s the right decision for US interests.  If Canada wants to sell their oil then build a pipeline across Canada to sell to Asia and Europe.  Canada put too many of their eggs in the energy basket and are now paying the price for that strategy.  Maybe this will curtail the irresponsible spending habits of the current Canadian government.

[Slain]

They can always save the oil for later.  When the  sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing, it should stay safely underground for several million years.  So then our decendants can thank us for it.

[Marknreston]

Unfortunately with or without the pipeline, the oil will move.  Instead of a pipeline it will move via trucks or trains which will be more prone to accidents, derailments and environmental damage. Yes, this is politically correct and will be welcome by the Progressives in his Party but this is very short sighted  

[TKDfella]

1 hour ago, Slain said:

They can always save the oil for later.  When the  sun stops shining or the wind stops blowing, it should stay safely underground for several million years.  So then our decendants can thank us for it.

If the Sun stops shining there won't be any descendants...'cause we'll all be dead. But yes, the oil will then stay underground.

As far as the Canadians are concerned, after a few tries this and that way, they'll probably find some alternative after a while.

Anthropogenic Enhanced Global Warming is much more complex than just oil considerations, having Windmills and solar panels. What has happened is that we have reached a point, some say almost critical, but our energy providing/ industrial technology has not kept pace with the need for alternatives.

P.E. Biden was wrong in his speech about the the planet crying out for its survival. Instead of making that soft, somewhat emotional approach he should have spoken of the reality. The planet isn't crying out for its survival, it is warning us of our survival...the planet will survive even if we don't.

Edited January 21, 2021 by TKDfella

[placeholder]

3 hours ago, vandeventer said:

Just another stupid thing he is doing for the greenies. Yes we want more and more wind power and more and more dead birds.

A study published in 2009 looking at the US and Europe estimated that wind farms were responsible for about 0.3 bird deaths for every 1GWh of electricity generated, compared with 5.2 deaths per 1GWh caused by fossil-fuelled power stations...

Another study in 2012 came to a similar conclusion, finding that fossil-fuel powered plants killed birds during mining, through onsite collision, electrocution with plant equipment and poisoning.

Putin: Is he right about wind turbines and bird deaths? - BBC News

 

Wind Power Results In Very Few Bird Deaths Overall

Fossil fuel and nuclear power plants actually cause more bird deaths than wind power. They also threaten the very ecosystems bird species rely on. Furthermore, bird deaths from wind turbines have dropped considerably (per kWh) as the technology has matured, and annual bird death totals from cats, windows, and vehicles each dwarf annual bird death totals from wind power.

Wind Power Results In Very Few Bird Deaths Overall (cleantechnica.com)

 

On the other hand, according traditional Thai teaching, waterfowl are grouped together with fish rather than other birds. So maybe all those winged animals killed by oil spills aren't really birds after all.

 

[placeholder]

47 minutes ago, Marknreston said:

Unfortunately with or without the pipeline, the oil will move.  Instead of a pipeline it will move via trucks or trains which will be more prone to accidents, derailments and environmental damage. Yes, this is politically correct and will be welcome by the Progressives in his Party but this is very short sighted  

Given that the economic outlook for petroleum is not bright - the major oil companies have all been writing down or evening writing off the value of their more expensive reserves - making tar sands oil more expensive to exploit will discourage the extraction of oil from them.

[Psimbo]

Am I missing something? I was under the impression that oil was already pushed down through the existing Keystone pipeline and this is just an extra pipeline to straighten out some of the kinks. Seems to be much ado about nothing.

[pacovl46]

Great! Canada does already more than enough damage to the environment with their effed up oil tar sand operations! 

[Gold Star]

10 hours ago, 1Gringo said:

good.

 

if Canada wants/needs that nasty, dirty sludge turned into gas, then Canada should just build a refinery next to the supply.

Alberta would welcome the opportunity to expand it's petrochemical industry and refinery operations adding value to its oil and sell refined products to the world market. However, 1) refined product still needs to get to market in a pipeline instead of the expensive and environmentally more dangerous rail option, and 2) there is already enough refinery capacity elsewhere specifically in the Gulf, in need of heavy oil feedstock.

 

[Gold Star]

4 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Great! Canada does already more than enough damage to the environment with their effed up oil tar sand operations! 

Modern methods of heavy oil extraction for new operations involves in situ recovery. Steam and diluent injection with a very small surface footprint. The forests are undisturbed with no environmental damage unlike surface mining.

[placeholder]

13 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Modern methods of heavy oil extraction for new operations involves in situ recovery. Steam and diluent injection with a very small surface footprint. The forests are undisturbed with no environmental damage unlike surface mining.

While in situ may be an improvement, it still uses a lot of water.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Water_impacts_of_oil_sands#:~:text=The water used in oil,sand before it is extracted.

[Gold Star]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

While in situ may be an improvement, it still uses a lot of water.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Water_impacts_of_oil_sands#:~:text=The water used in oil,sand before it is extracted.

With rising sea levels due to climate change, it would be a good thing to sequester water in geologic formations rather than contribute to the problem.

 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, Gold Star said:

With rising sea levels due to climate change, it would be a good thing to sequester water in geologic formations rather than contribute to the problem.

 

Because what the world needs is less fresh water. And all the life that depends on it.

[Gold Star]

4 hours ago, placeholder said:

Given that the economic outlook for petroleum is not bright - the major oil companies have all been writing down or evening writing off the value of their more expensive reserves - making tar sands oil more expensive to exploit will discourage the extraction of oil from them.

Substantial capital costs have already been invested and spent for these large projects. To operate them is now not an issue. In addition, the breakeven costs are substantially lower than they were a few years ago, which vary between operations, but are only around $30 US per bbl. The approx $15 Canadian discount differential that Canadian oil gets to WTI crude is mainly due to limited egress to markets as producers must pay dearly for pipeline allocations. Canadian oil is currently shipped south at a discount using existing limited pipelines and by rail, refined in the US, then piped back up into Canada to the eastern provinces at full markup. This lines the pockets of the US refiners and distributors, and billions of revenue is cut from Canada's royalty and tax base. 

[Gold Star]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Because what the world needs is less fresh water. And all the life that depends on it.

Fresh water in Canada is as abundant as it's rain and snow. However, the world still needs a pipeline to bring it to where it is needed.

[Gold Star]

8 hours ago, chilli42 said:

It’s the right decision for US interests.  If Canada wants to sell their oil then build a pipeline across Canada to sell to Asia and Europe.  Canada put too many of their eggs in the energy basket and are now paying the price for that strategy.  Maybe this will curtail the irresponsible spending habits of the current Canadian government.

Canada is blessed with the third largest oil reserves in the world. Why would it not choose to develop this resource in a responsible world class way unlike current producers? Energy East was the West to East pipeline to supply eastern Canada. It was killed by the Quebec provincial government, not the federal government. 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Canada is blessed with the third largest oil reserves in the world. Why would it not choose to develop this resource in a responsible world class way unlike current producers? Energy East was the West to East pipeline to supply eastern Canada. It was killed by the Quebec provincial government, not the federal government. 

Lots of reasons. One is that oil sand reserves are hugely expensive to develop. And major oil companies around the world are already writing off reserves that cost too much to develop. This is largely in recognition of the fact the renewable energy sources are coming on line at a speed that is decades ahead of predictions made not long ago.

[placeholder]

12 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Fresh water in Canada is as abundant as it's rain and snow. However, the world still needs a pipeline to bring it to where it is needed.

Tell that to the plant and animal life that lives in or depends on the Athabasca River.

[placeholder]

10 minutes ago, Gold Star said:

Canada is blessed with the third largest oil reserves in the world. Why would it not choose to develop this resource in a responsible world class way unlike current producers? Energy East was the West to East pipeline to supply eastern Canada. It was killed by the Quebec provincial government, not the federal government. 

And there's also this:

Oilsands could eventually acidify an area the size of Germany, study says

The largest and most precise study yet done on acid emissions from Alberta’s oilsands suggests they could eventually damage an area almost the size of Germany.

The study finds that in 2013 more than 330,000 square kilometres in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan absorbed acid deposits high enough to eventually damage life in rivers and lakes.

“This work is a warning,” said Paul Makar, an Environment Canada scientist and lead author on the paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/07/25/oilsands-could-eventually-acidify-an-area-the-size-of-germany-study-says.html

[Gold Star]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Lots of reasons. One is that oil sand reserves are hugely expensive to develop. And major oil companies around the world are already writing off reserves that cost too much to develop. This is largely in recognition of the fact the renewable energy sources are coming on line at a speed that is decades ahead of predictions made not long ago.

The speed of renewable implementation and EVs is much too slow to severely  impact fossil fuel consumption in the next decade or two. At best, it may only keep up with the increase in demand as the third world comes into prosperity and increased energy consumption. Have you tried heating your home in Canada in a -40C winter day when the sun barely rises above the horizon barely visible through the ice fog for 8 hours a day? It can't be done.

[Gold Star]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Tell that to the plant and animal life that lives in or depends on the Athabasca River.

Nothing wrong with the Athabasca river. Still good hunting and fishing areas.

[placeholder]

Just now, Gold Star said:

The speed of renewable implementation and EVs is much too slow to severely  impact fossil fuel consumption in the next decade or two. At best, it may only keep up with the increase in demand as the third world comes into prosperity and increased energy consumption. Have you tried heating your home in Canada in a -40C winter day when the sun barely rises above the horizon barely visible through the ice fog for 8 hours a day? It can't be done.

That's not what major oil companies believe.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/20-Of-Global-Oil-Gas-Reserves-Could-Be-Wiped-Out-If-Crude-Prices-Dont-Recove.html

Just now, Gold Star said:

Nothing wrong with the Athabasca river. Still good hunting and fishing areas.

Not  yet.

The source of water used for drilling in the Alberta tar sands could dry up in the coming decades, according to new research released Monday. The questionable future of the Athabasca River threatens the longevity of fossil fuel extraction in the world’s third-largest crude oil reserve.

Scientists at the University of Regina and University of Western Ontario in Canada looked at 900 years of tree ring data and found water levels have dwindled along the 765-mile river at various points throughout its history.

The analysis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows the waterway has shrunk over the past 50 years as global warming has melted the glaciers that feed it. It also found the region has experienced several droughts that have lasted more than a decade in the last few centuries. Such a drought could likely happen in the near future, the scientists said.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21092015/water-could-run-dry-alberta-tar-sands-drilling/

[Gold Star]

16 minutes ago, placeholder said:

And there's also this:

Oilsands could eventually acidify an area the size of Germany, study says

The largest and most precise study yet done on acid emissions from Alberta’s oilsands suggests they could eventually damage an area almost the size of Germany.

The study finds that in 2013 more than 330,000 square kilometres in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan absorbed acid deposits high enough to eventually damage life in rivers and lakes.

“This work is a warning,” said Paul Makar, an Environment Canada scientist and lead author on the paper published in the Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/07/25/oilsands-could-eventually-acidify-an-area-the-size-of-germany-study-says.html

Wildfires devastate thousands of square kilometers of forest yearly in Canada, and have been occurring for many thousands of years since the last ice age.  Every forest matures over the years, then burns to a crisp during a dry season due to lightning or other causes.  We have a cabin up north. Not an issue.

 

[placeholder]

Just now, Gold Star said:

Wildfires devastate thousands of square kilometers of forest yearly in Canada, and have been occurring for many thousands of years since the last ice age.  Every forest matures over the years, then burns to a crisp during a dry season due to lightning or other causes.  We have a cabin up north. Not an issue.

 

And after the fires the forest is renewed. Part of the natural cycle. What's that got to do with acid rain? Ya think after the forest dies from being poisoned it's going to come back? Is acid rain cyclical in nature?

[Gold Star]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

That's not what major oil companies believe.

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/20-Of-Global-Oil-Gas-Reserves-Could-Be-Wiped-Out-If-Crude-Prices-Dont-Recove.html

Not  yet.

The source of water used for drilling in the Alberta tar sands could dry up in the coming decades, according to new research released Monday. The questionable future of the Athabasca River threatens the longevity of fossil fuel extraction in the world’s third-largest crude oil reserve.

Scientists at the University of Regina and University of Western Ontario in Canada looked at 900 years of tree ring data and found water levels have dwindled along the 765-mile river at various points throughout its history.

The analysis, published in the peer-reviewed journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows the waterway has shrunk over the past 50 years as global warming has melted the glaciers that feed it. It also found the region has experienced several droughts that have lasted more than a decade in the last few centuries. Such a drought could likely happen in the near future, the scientists said.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21092015/water-could-run-dry-alberta-tar-sands-drilling/

LOL. Have you ever been on of seen the size and headwaters of of the Athabasca river? Not a chance.