KEYSTONE XL DELAY – A LESSON LEARNED FOR CANADA TO OVERHAUL ITS THINKING, POLICIES AND TO BE SELF-DEPENDENT

On 18 April the US Administration displayed yet again how pusillanimous and spineless it is on Keystone XL pipeline approval issue by punting it further down the road – any final decision is not expected before the congressional elections this year in November.

The media reports suggest following commentary from both Democrats and Republicans:

New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp blasted the delay, calling it "absolutely ridiculous," while Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., called the delay "irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable".

From the other side of the aisle, Republican House Speaker John Boehner said “this delay is shameful"; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, called the delay "a stunning act of political cowardice".

Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper expressed frustration over the snail like pace of the administration’s decision-making. Harper's office was "disappointed that politics continue to delay a decision," his spokesman said. Canadian ambassador Gary Doer reportedly said the State Department should focus on the international crossing between Alberta and Montana and leave it to the state of Nebraska to figure out the precise route there. Incidentally, the U.S. State Department said Friday it needs to assess the impact of a court battle in Nebraska that could force a change in the pipeline’s route.

Notwithstanding whichever way the political circus pans out on Keystone, there is one most important lesson for Canada – it’s federal and provincial politicians, the top corporate executives, the First Nations and the general public: Canada and the Canadians got to diversify, and also be self-dependent. Canada’s policy of putting all eggs in one basket (i.e. depending on US) is past its expiration date. So, what actions should follow from this lessons learned?

·       The pipeline companies in Canada must find alternative pipeline route within Canada to get the bitumen to refineries within Canada and outside;

·       In regard to alternative pipeline routes, conclude negotiations with stakeholders, namely, First Nations, the Provincial Governments ASAP;

·       The Federal and the Provincial governments got to shove aside all politics and come together to make decisions based on win-win formula – a solution that ensures the stakeholders, like, the First Nations, the Province(s) get a reasonably fair deal out of the pipeline projects;

·       The companies in Canada must think about setting up an upgrader within Canada as a complimentary/ supplementary solution, to process the bitumen from Alberta (and potentially from Saskatchewan) and selling the synthetic crude oil (light crude) to US, refineries within Canada (if they have spare capacity to process) and refineries outside Canada;

·       The refinery companies in Canada should think about expanding and/or retro-fitting their refineries in Canada in alignment with production of additional amount of bitumen and/or synthetic crude oil;

·       Align increased gas production from gas fields in BC for use in oil sands production and the refineries and LNG production;

·       Think about putting up petrochemicals complex downstream of Canadian refineries; and

·       Put in place ASAP policy frameworks, tax regimes that are required for decision making on LNG projects and oil sands industry.

Canada may be justified in being utterly frustrated with US on Keystone, but it cannot absolve itself of the pathetically slow progress on pipeline projects within Canada, LNG project in BC and so on. It’s time Canada found solutions toward harnessing its massive natural resources within Canada itself rather than depending on US.

The political parties of Canada – Federal and Provincial both – must understand the basics of Canadian economy (GDP) – the components of the GDP – and must realize the importance of natural resources like oil sands and oil and gas in Canada’s GDP and the service sectors they support. Only then they would realize the futility of having divergent opinion on oil sands and LNG development and squabbling amongst themselves. Only then some political parties would not make irresponsible, ludicrous statements about environmental record of Canada and thereby cause damage to Canadian interests.

The political parties and their leaders must understand clearly that the first world like standard of living and wellbeing of Canada, which Canada is proud of, will be in absolutely serious jeopardy if Canada fails to appreciate the nature’s blessings and harness the nature’s bounty given to it. The delay in Keystone pipeline is nature’s way of warning and providing a wake up call to all Canadians to change its old ways of thinking, policies and working. Now, it is up to the Canadians whether they pay heed to nature’s warning!

JIMMY CARTER, DESMOND TUTU ET AL OPPOSE KEYSTONE XL PROJECT – IS IT CASE OF SENILITY OR EFFECT OF SOME KIND OF CRAVING AND/OR MAMMON?

The Keystone XL pipeline project approval circus is getting more farcical with former US president Jimmy Carter weighing on this project. Carter joined some Nobel Laureates– Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of them – in issuing an open letter to US President and Secretary of State seeking rejection of the pipeline.

Carter and the other writers have expressed their opposition in quite vehement terms; among other things saying that “Keystone XL project is the linchpin for tar sands expansion and the increased pollution that will follow, triggering more climate upheaval with impacts felt around the world.”

Let’s try to understand what these folks are trying to say. So, they are saying that this one pipeline – Keystone XL – which is supposed to transport 830,000 barrels of bitumen per day, will cause so much pollution that it will trigger climate upheaval with impact felt around the world?!!! Really?!!! Can anyone in right frame of mind make such a ludicrous, nonsensical, irrational statement?

Then why did Carter and others allowed their names to be used for such a ludicrous, nonsensical, irrational assertion? Seriously, why?

Is it senility or something else that has afflicted them? After all, one assumes that Carter et al should have this much of commonsense to realize that just one pipeline carrying less than a million barrels of crude per day which is just about one percent of current crude oil production worldwide cannot by any stretch of rational sense ‘trigger climate upheaval’. It is flat out nonsense. Yet, these so-called intellectuals have affixed their name to such gargantuan irrational, foolish statement.

Of all the persons whose names are listed in the open letter, Carter should know best the enormous advantage US stands to gain through STRATEGIC partnership with Canada of which Keystone is a major component. Advantage of being energy giants! Imagine the scenario wherein US and Canada can stand together as stable, dependable energy superpowers with massive amount of oil and gas at their disposal for export to the world in today’s global uncertainty – uncertainty in gas and oil supply from regions in Europe, Middle East, Africa. But Carter overlooks all this! Why?

Do the people who have written this letter really believe that by killing one pipeline they will make any meaningful impact in regard to the so-called pollution problem? If they do, they are dumb-asses. If these people had raised their voice against global use of fossil fuel that would have still made some sense at least. It is a different discussion though the theory propounded by some scientists, that the so-called CO₂ generated from combustion of crude oil is responsible for ‘climate change’, is total balderdash and piffle.

In the letter there is another assertion that is completely dubious. This is regarding the so-called impacts on First Nations of Northern Alberta – apparently their water, air, land and human rights are being ‘devastated’ by growth of oil sands. It appears that this kind of statement is drafted by someone who has no clue of the reality prevailing in Northern Alberta. Nothing but some sensational stuff meant to stir emotions of those unfamiliar with the ground realities!!

So, coming back to the question: what made these people to jump on this Keystone XL bandwagon? Do they also want to be included in the post-scripts of climate change ‘crusade’? Or, maybe they want to have their names included in the list of knights in shining armor who saved the world from some ‘climate change apocalypse’? On this point of climate change it must be mentioned that unfortunately the world is currently in the grip of a massive hoax predicated on climate change – a hoax similar to what history saw in Galileo’s time when people thought sun goes around earth.

So, if it’s true that the above cited letter writers are unable to control their inner cravings to have their names included in a so-called climate change crusade, well, then that can be said to be stemming from senility (or some psychological disorder) in some way or the other.  It is sad that these people failed to realize that campaigning against just one pipeline is totally meaningless – killing one pipeline will not make any dent whatsoever. If they had to really achieve anything substantive, they could have raised their voice against something on global scale, say, against all heavy oil – be it from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela or US or China, not just against Canadian heavy oil.

So, now the pressure is on President Obama. On one hand former president Clinton, Warren Buffet et al have reportedly supported Keystone XL pipeline apart from host of current Democrat Senators. As well, a former National Security Advisor of US testified before Senate recently that Keystone is INDEED in the national interests of US, rejection of Keystone would be playing in the hands of Putin.

People may be reminded that, unfortunately, Obama was ‘framed’ by the shrewd Europeans in his early days of presidency by very cleverly putting the albatross of Nobel Peace Prize around his neck. And, now Obama is continually getting crushed under its weight in the context of leaving behind a legacy.

Will Obama buckle down under the weight of misplaced phantom notion of legacy and reject the pipeline or think of larger long term interests of United States and approve the project? Perhaps Obama would care to remember that one of the signs of a person’s greatness and statesmanship is to subordinate one’s own hankering after greatness to the greater good of the people and the world. What greatness material is Obama made of?

CANADIAN OIL SANDS PLAYERS NEED TO COME UP WITH A NEW UPGRADER AND JOIN HANDS WITH BC FIRST NATIONS CONSORTIUM

A First Nations-led consortium proposed on Monday 14 April to build an alternative project (to Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project) that would link Alberta’s oil sands to the British Columbia coast. Eagle Spirit Energy Holdings Ltd. and Vancouver-based Aquilini Group say they have signed non-disclosure agreements with a “substantial number” of First Nation groups in northern B.C., including some “staunchly opposed” to the Enbridge project.

The proposed one-million barrel-per-day pipeline has a tentative start date of 2020 and it is contingent on securing a “social license” from First Nations to operate. However, the Eagle Spirit project proposes to ship synthetic crude oil (SCO) (light crude) instead of bitumen, after being refined in an upgrading project. This business model is very much on the lines of a plan outlined in my blog of 27 January 2014 (CANADIAN PIPELINE PROJECTS IN LIMBO? NO WORRIES, HERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION!)

The above proposal is a win-win for all parties and makes a lot of sense in view of following:

·       It would be First Nations’ headache to secure the ‘social license’ and all the required approvals to build and operate the pipeline.

·       Transportation of SCO (light crude) in the pipelines will be more acceptable to local population (in BC) than bitumen.

·       An upgrader can be suitably located in either Alberta or Saskatchewan to be able to feed SCO for shipping overseas through West Coast and/or for pumping to refineries in Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick.  

·       Building of an upgrader will squelch the criticism that by exporting bitumen to other countries many jobs (that could have been potentially created in Canada if there was an upgrader) would also export jobs overseas.

·       There will be less worry about Keystone XL’s outcome.

Now to the question of financing the projects:

Financing of the Pipeline: The Aquilini Group is reportedly willing to underwrite the cost of the pipeline as long as it gets support of all First Nations through whose territory the pipeline would travel. To some it may seem far-fetched or unrealistic, still, once the First Nations endorse the proposed project, financial analysts would get the chance to get down to the brass tacks regarding financing.

As a suggestion, why should Enbridge not like to collaborate on this proposal? They could possibly hedge their bets by investing in this project and carry on with their efforts on their Northern Gateway project despite number of First Nations bands informing NEB that they are not in favor of the project and the unbinding rejection of the project by the Kitimat city plebiscite.

  

Financing of the Upgrader: As suggested in my above cited blog dated 27 January 2014, the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and Mr. David Black (the BC billionaire who claims to have investors ready for investing in a refinery in Kitimat) could possibly share the cost of an Upgrader. Suncor and/or Total could revisit their economic models to fit in some investment sharing for this upgrader. Even TransCanada can think of diversifying and investing in this project depending upon the outcome of KXL project clearance by the US government.

Summary: All in all, the above pipeline project proposal predicated on an upgrader (in Alberta or Saskatchewan) seems to be a viable proposition and should be pursued by the various stakeholders and potential investors with great vigor and urgency. After all, the window of opportunity for oil and gas exports from Canada will not remain open for a long time. The Federal and Provincial governments should act as facilitators and help smoothen the path forward. Mind you, running with the above proposal does not mean that other viable proposals (e.g. Kinder Morgan pipeline twinning) cannot be pursued alongside. What may happen is that other projects may have to tweak some aspects, if and as necessary. 

LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE HOOPLA – CASE OF SOME VISUALLY CHALLENGED FOLKS UNSUCCESSFULLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AN ELEPHANT

Ever since the latest report of IPCC has been presented some people, including the UN and IMF, have started jumping up and down in some kind of inexplicable frenzy. There are talks of gloom and doom – as if the world will come to an end within few decades if something drastic is not done soon. However, if one keeps aside one’s emotion (i.e. irrational state of mind) and rationally analyzes the information, people are basing on for their doomsday scenarios and other information germane to so-called climate change topic, one would be taken back.

A question that will come up will be: Have the scientists been able to figure out totally as to why the phenomena known as La Nina and El Nino behave the way they behave? The honest answer is that scientists still DO NOT fully understand these phenomena – the various parameters that affect them, the interactivity of the parameters, the why’s and wherefore’s of the parameters’ influences and so on.  Just so people know, La Nina and El Nino profoundly affect weather patterns for a given year.

From the above question, the next question will arise: If the scientists have not been able to fully fathom the aforementioned two very important natural phenomena, how on earth can they claim that they have figured out climate change phenomenon in totality? Very commonsensical question indeed! It brings to mind the story in which some visually challenged people who were trying to figure out an elephant made very inaccurate assessments because they were visually impaired – one person who touch the leg called it a pillar, one who touched the trunk called it a thick rope, and so on they went.

Exactly in similar manner some so-called scientists are making some very apocalyptic assessments in regard to planet earth’s future vis-à-vis climate change without having understood the REAL causes behind climate’s behavior. Based on the analogy of visually challenged men unsuccessfully trying to figure out an elephant, the idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind can be classified as preposterous and scare-mongering.

The current climate change doom-n-gloom monkey dance is very much akin to a misinformed notion that used to prevail in Galileo’s time when a sizable community of so-called scientists (perhaps almost all) used to think that that the sun goes around the earth. In fact, it was a heresy to say anything to the contrary, and Galileo was persecuted when he challenged the prevailing view.

At the current time if anybody challenges the climate change postulates, its apocalyptic prognostications, that person is ridiculed. This is very reminiscent of Galileo’s time. The hoax perpetrated during Galileo was sun revolves around earth; the current climate related hoax being bandied about relates to an ‘alarming’ change taking place in climate and it is all due to the villain called carbon-di-oxide (CO₂).

The climate change doom-n-gloom proponents ascribe all the apocalyptic scenarios to CO₂’s level in the atmosphere. It will take many pages to go in to the analysis of the parameters used by doom-n-gloom scientists (and its inadequacies), suffice it to say that putting all the blame on CO₂ is laughable because the theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis – water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO₂ is only 0.04%.

The climate change doom-n-gloom scientists cite the freakish weather incidents to bolster their case. In this context one noted scientist said “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us……. “The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.” “It’s absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.”

The fact of the matter is that there is an agenda behind this climate change hoopla. Again, to quote the above scientist “If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.” So, there you go!

It has become almost a fashion for world leaders to parrot the climate change topic and pontificate without comprehending the subject in its totality. May be it provides an easy diversionary angle to their spiels. But they need to be enlightened and told not to repeat the lie and hoax situation of Galileo’s time. 

At any rate, it’s time that people who understand the game behind the nefarious, agenda driven hoax of ‘climate change’ circus should unite and lay out for the general public the truth behind climate change in easy to understand lingo.  It will not be easy to stand up to the ‘organized mob’ of climate change doom-n-gloom proponents but then Galileo stood against the ‘organized mob’ of his time and proved them wrong. The Galileos of the present time would have to rally together and bring out convincing material to prove the 21^st century hoax perpetrators on climate change wrong. It would be a hard, long road that would require perseverance. But truth shall prevail ultimately!