$18B - $20B In Lost Revenue Annually

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,697
14,117
113
Low Earth Orbit
From where? Fighter jets? Ballet shoes for Quebec? Indian Reserves? Interest on debt?

None of the above.

An estimated $20B is lost simply by having to discount our oil because of bottlenecks in distribution.

What is the fix? Is it easy to fix? Yes!

All it takes is two pipelines.


A glut of oil from multiple continental sources, including the Alberta oilsands, and inability to move it to market due to pipeline bottlenecks is resulting in large discounts for western Canadian crude compared to North American benchmark West Texas Intermediate and international Brent prices.

The price spread, for example, is costing Alberta $8.5 million a day in royalties — or more than $3 billion a year — and the entire Canadian economy nearly $20 billion annually, according to various estimates.

“It’s a real concern. It’s a growing concern,” Oliver said of the price spread, during a 2013 look-ahead interview with Postmedia News.

Oliver said he believes the Obama administration will soon approve the rerouted Keystone XL project. The pipeline would transport oilsands crude from northern Alberta to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas, as well as help alleviate a backlog of oil in the U.S. Midwest. The difficulty in moving North American crude to tidewater is causing it to trade at discounted prices compared to imports.

He also stressed the importance of a west-east pipeline system in Canada and for additional export capacity off the West Coast to move Canadian petroleum to Asian markets (the Northern Gateway oilsands pipeline is undergoing a regulatory review).

“The critical issue is to diversify the markets. If there was a game changer in 2012, it was a realization that diversification is utterly crucial,” Oliver added.

“We absolutely must be able to transport the resources to tidewater, and to do that, we need the infrastructure built — build the pipelines — and we’ve got to move not only west, but we’ve got to look at the east as well and hopefully the south also.”

Currently, a barrel of Western Canadian Select, which includes Canadian heavy conventional oil and bitumen crude, is worth slightly more than $60 — a discount of around $30 per barrel compared to the North American benchmark West Texas Intermediate (which is selling for about $92 US per barrel).

The gap is around $50 a barrel compared to the international Brent prices of approximately $112 US per barrel.

The price discount is costing provincial governments and petroleum producers billions of dollars annually, with some of the big banks pegging estimated losses to the Canadian economy at $18 billion or more a year.

The situation comes as a recent report from the International Energy Agency said the United States — Canada’s main energy customer — will become the world’s top oil producer by the end of the decade and eventually be energy self-sufficient over the next few decades.

At the same time, Oliver notes 99 per cent of Canada’s oil exports and all of its natural gas exports are going to the U.S., a trend that must change if Canada is to truly capitalize on its abundant natural resources and capture world prices.


Read more: Canada
 

bill barilko

Senate Member
Mar 4, 2009
6,024
574
113
Vancouver-by-the-Sea
 

tay

Hall of Fame Member
May 20, 2012
11,548
1
36
So if canadians got $30 off a barrel at the pumps a litre would be ? Well let's see Canada is getting $60 a bbl vs $92 world price = 35%

If a litre in your area is a $1.15 - 35% = 40 = puts us at 75 cents a litre.

So why are canadian consumers paying world prices?
 

bill barilko

Senate Member
Mar 4, 2009
6,024
574
113
Vancouver-by-the-Sea
Note-OP is the same wanker who predicted $0.80/liter gasoline-which never happened.

Although it must be said that taste differs-some people actually like the Kool Aid made from petroleum.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
So if canadians got $30 off a barrel at the pumps a litre would be ? Well let's see Canada is getting $60 a bbl vs $92 world price = 35%

If a litre in your area is a $1.15 - 35% = 40 = puts us at 75 cents a litre.

So why are canadian consumers paying world prices?

Ever heard of taxes tay?

You lefties absolutely love 'em, so I'm really surprised that you are unaware of how much gvt adds onto your gas bill
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,697
14,117
113
Low Earth Orbit
So if canadians got $30 off a barrel at the pumps a litre would be ? Well let's see Canada is getting $60 a bbl vs $92 world price = 35%

If a litre in your area is a $1.15 - 35% = 40 = puts us at 75 cents a litre.

So why are canadian consumers paying world prices?
Fuel is a commodity all it's own with it's own value.

Ever heard of taxes tay?

You lefties absolutely love 'em, so I'm really surprised that you are unaware of how much gvt adds onto your gas bill
I buy purple I know how much is taxes.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,651
10,806
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
So if canadians got $30 off a barrel at the pumps a litre would be ? Well let's see Canada is getting $60 a bbl vs $92 world price = 35%

If a litre in your area is a $1.15 - 35% = 40 = puts us at 75 cents a litre.

So why are canadian consumers paying world prices?

Could it have to do with NAFTA & the clause where Canada signed that it would
not sell oil domestically for less than what it would sell it to the US of A?

Fuel is a commodity all it's own with it's own value.


I buy purple I know how much is taxes.

I did the IFTA reports for a trucking company for 1/2 a decade, so I hear you.

Can you see this bottle neck being the excuse/justification for a major price
jump this summer at the pumps, to push through these pipelines?
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Ever heard of taxes tay?

You lefties absolutely love 'em, so I'm really surprised that you are unaware of how much gvt adds onto your gas bill

The way I read his somewhat shaky math the taxes are in in both cases.
But he does have a point. Nafta only says we can't export for less than domestic price. I don't recall it saying the domestic price can't be lower than export. SO it seems to me we should export the higher grades of crude and use the lower priced ones domestically and have a lower priced domestic fuel.

If one could convince the idle rich that don't want pipelines to the coast that their entitlements depend on it perhaps there would be less opposition to them.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,651
10,806
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
An estimated $20B is lost simply by having to discount our oil because of bottlenecks in distribution.

What is the fix? Is it easy to fix? Yes!

All it takes is two pipelines.
The Liberal party has stated it will not appeal or cancel Bill C-69, which means we are not allowed to build any more pipelines. Yet the Liberal government keeps talking about being strong and united. Alberta and Saskatchewan have no way of shipping oil to other provinces or countries. For the most part, the only place they can ship oil to is the United States at a reduced price.
A glut of oil from multiple continental sources, including the Alberta oilsands, and inability to move it to market due to pipeline bottlenecks is resulting in large discounts for western Canadian crude compared to North American benchmark West Texas Intermediate and international Brent prices.
Saskatchewan and Alberta have had 10 years of Liberal government restricting their rights to ship oil elsewhere.
The price spread, for example, is costing Alberta $8.5 million a day in royalties — or more than $3 billion a year — and the entire Canadian economy nearly $20 billion annually, according to various estimates.
That might be a cause for some frustration.
In the wake of Mark Carney's election win, several provincial leaders are calling for a political "reset" in how Ottawa engages with the West — particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where grievances over federal decision-making run deep.

The federal government should "engage and consult" Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe said Tuesday.

Carney should "reach out to our friends out West, and tell them how he's going to build that pipeline," Ontario Premier Doug Ford added.

When asked on Power & Politics about a separatism push in her province, Smith said her government would not advance such an initiative but left the door open for a citizen referendum.

"I believe that we've got to try to be on Team Canada, but my view has always been that Team Canada has to show that they're on Team Alberta, too," she said.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney confirmed this week that his party will not repeal Bill C-69 if when his party forms the next government.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith posted a dire warning on X: “Make no mistake. If this law stays, there will be few, if any, large-scale energy infrastructure projects built in this country and Alberta and Saskatchewan will be cut off from international markets. This means Canada will become more vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States.”

Is that by design?

Those living in Eastern Canada should worry because, in order for oil and gas to get to them from the West, it passes through the U.S., so we don’t have control of our own energy supply. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, it’s that this country has to aim for energy security and self-reliance in all aspects of our economy.

All those brave words about “Elbows Up” and “Canada Strong” are just hot air and slogans if we’re not prepared to fight for our survival with every weapon at our disposal.

Canada is blessed with abundant resources. To hobble our economy with legislation that’s been deemed unconstitutional is an act of self-harm to the Canadian economy at a time when we need to be unleashing the full power of our potential.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,697
14,117
113
Low Earth Orbit
The Liberal party has stated it will not appeal or cancel Bill C-69, which means we are not allowed to build any more pipelines. Yet the Liberal government keeps talking about being strong and united. Alberta and Saskatchewan have no way of shipping oil to other provinces or countries. For the most part, the only place they can ship oil to is the United States at a reduced price.

Saskatchewan and Alberta have had 10 years of Liberal government restricting their rights to ship oil elsewhere.

That might be a cause for some frustration.
In the wake of Mark Carney's election win, several provincial leaders are calling for a political "reset" in how Ottawa engages with the West — particularly in Alberta and Saskatchewan, where grievances over federal decision-making run deep.

The federal government should "engage and consult" Saskatchewan, Premier Scott Moe said Tuesday.

Carney should "reach out to our friends out West, and tell them how he's going to build that pipeline," Ontario Premier Doug Ford added.

When asked on Power & Politics about a separatism push in her province, Smith said her government would not advance such an initiative but left the door open for a citizen referendum.

"I believe that we've got to try to be on Team Canada, but my view has always been that Team Canada has to show that they're on Team Alberta, too," she said.
Liberal Leader Mark Carney confirmed this week that his party will not repeal Bill C-69 if when his party forms the next government.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith posted a dire warning on X: “Make no mistake. If this law stays, there will be few, if any, large-scale energy infrastructure projects built in this country and Alberta and Saskatchewan will be cut off from international markets. This means Canada will become more vulnerable to and overly dependent on the United States.”

Is that by design?

Those living in Eastern Canada should worry because, in order for oil and gas to get to them from the West, it passes through the U.S., so we don’t have control of our own energy supply. If we’ve learned anything over the past few months, it’s that this country has to aim for energy security and self-reliance in all aspects of our economy.

All those brave words about “Elbows Up” and “Canada Strong” are just hot air and slogans if we’re not prepared to fight for our survival with every weapon at our disposal.

Canada is blessed with abundant resources. To hobble our economy with legislation that’s been deemed unconstitutional is an act of self-harm to the Canadian economy at a time when we need to be unleashing the full power of our potential.
Tariffs. SK and AB can use tariffs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bob the dog

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
116,697
14,117
113
Low Earth Orbit
Saskatchewan joined Confederation on September 1, 1905, and its first election was slated for December of that year. Former Northwest Territories Premier Frederick Haultain had been instrumental in the granting of provincehood. However, while he had advocated for the creation of one large western province—for which he favoured the name Buffalo—Wilfrid Laurier's federal government opted to create two new provinces instead, with Alberta joining Confederation alongside Saskatchewan. Moreover, like Manitoba a generation earlier, the two new provinces were denied rights over their natural resources.[2] In response, Haultain re-branded his Territorial Conservative Association as the Provincial Rights Party in a bid to become premier of Saskatchewan.[3]

As premier, Haultain led negotiations for the granting of provincial status. He argued for Alberta and Saskatchewan to be admitted as a single province named Buffalo,[6] and wanted the new province to be governed by non-partisan governments. The federal Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, however, decided that such a province would challenge the power of Ontario, and Quebec. Instead wanting to carve up the province to create, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in 1905.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,853
9,299
113
Washington DC
Saskatchewan joined Confederation on September 1, 1905, and its first election was slated for December of that year. Former Northwest Territories Premier Frederick Haultain had been instrumental in the granting of provincehood. However, while he had advocated for the creation of one large western province—for which he favoured the name Buffalo—Wilfrid Laurier's federal government opted to create two new provinces instead, with Alberta joining Confederation alongside Saskatchewan. Moreover, like Manitoba a generation earlier, the two new provinces were denied rights over their natural resources.[2] In response, Haultain re-branded his Territorial Conservative Association as the Provincial Rights Party in a bid to become premier of Saskatchewan.[3]

As premier, Haultain led negotiations for the granting of provincial status. He argued for Alberta and Saskatchewan to be admitted as a single province named Buffalo,[6] and wanted the new province to be governed by non-partisan governments. The federal Liberal government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, however, decided that such a province would challenge the power of Ontario, and Quebec. Instead wanting to carve up the province to create, Alberta and Saskatchewan, in 1905.
Wicked smart, that Laurier. Giving power to the loudly disloyal is suicide.