Industry Keenly Watches Canadian Energy Policy

U.S. and Canadian energy markets have been closely linked for many years as excess Canadian oil and natural gas production supplied U.S. demand. Now, however, increasing oil and natural gas production as well as delays in regulatory approvals for Keystone XL pipeline are pushing Canadian companies to seek overseas exports.

The issues as seen from Canada include:

Canadian pipelines are at or near capacity while oil and natural gas production is growing.

Canadian oil and gas exports now go almost exclusively to the United States.

Growing U.S. oil and natural gas production could significantly reduce demand for Canadian energy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) 2012 World Energy Outlook predicted the United States would become the world’s largest oil producer, overtaking Saudi Arabia by 2020. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), although less enthusiastic, is predicting that U.S. imports will decline and U.S. oil production will meet 62 percent of domestic demand in 2020.

The Keystone XL pipeline that will transport Alberta oil-sand production to the United States is suffering permitting delays and environmental protests.

Canadian oil sold to the United States receives significantly lower prices than would apply to Asian exports, reflecting the spread between West Texas Intermediate and Brent benchmark prices.

Also fueling the interest in exports is Asia’s continuing demand for oil and the region’s growing demand for natural gas. IEA projects Asian natural gas consumption will grow over 200 percent between now and 2035.

As the world’s largest oil importer and the largest customer for Canadian energy, U.S. consumers also are concerned about Canadian exports. Despite rosy IEA projections, the United States is likely to depend on Canadian imports as a secure, low-cost source of oil for many years.

The stories for oil and natural gas are different but the options for both resources are rapidly changing and controversial.

Canadian oil exports

Currently, Canada produces over 3.3 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) – including upgraded bitumen, heavy oil, light oil and condensate. About 2.5 million bopd are exported to the United States.

Canadian oil production, already sixth largest in the world, should grow significantly; Alberta oil sand production is projected to grow from the 1.5 million bopd currently produced to 3.7 million bopd in 2025.

This volume, obviously, will require markets outside Alberta.

However, the two dominant pipeline options, Keystone XL and Northern Gateway, are both facing potentially serious delays.

The Keystone XL pipeline is awaiting U.S. State Department approval or rejection of the TransCanada Corp. May 2012 application. This new application provides alternatives to routes through the Nebraska Sand Hills that contributed to the rejection of the 2011 application.

The Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality has released its draft evaluation report, which notes the revised pipeline route addresses the major concerns about the original route. The Nebraska evaluation is considered a strong indicator of U.S. approval, although pipeline advocates are still unsure the pipeline will be built.

A State Department decision is expected in the first quarter of 2013.

Canadian oil exports to Asia are primarily tied to the approval and construction of the Northern Gateway pipeline, a 1,177 kilometer (731 mile) west-flowing, 525,000 bopd heavy-oil pipeline paralleled by an east-flowing condensate pipeline that will be the source of diluent to thin the heavy oil for transport. The pipeline system runs between Alberta and Kitimat, British Columbia.

Environmental groups and British Columbia First Nations oppose the pipeline. Alberta and British Columbia premiers also are arguing about how pipeline revenues will be split.

As controversies slow both the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, smaller-volume alternatives are being proposed, including:

  • Reversing and reconfiguring a natural gas pipeline to ship oil east to Ontario and Quebec.
  • An expansion of the 300,000-barrel per day Trans Mountain pipeline system that moves Alberta oil to refineries near Vancouver, British Columbia, Washington and California.
  • Rail transport of oil.

Canadian natural gas exports

Canada is the third largest natural gas producer in the world, producing 5,218 billion cubic feet (bcf) in 2011. Canada’s net natural gas exports in 2011 were 2,168 bcf.

As both U.S. and Canadian unconventional natural gas production grows and the United States imports less natural gas, Canada will need Pacific coast liquefaction plants and export terminals.

Canada currently has one operating liquefied natural gas (LNG) import facility, the Canaport terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, which brought in 107 bcf in 2011, about 30 percent of its capacity. There are no active LNG export facilities in Canada.

Kitimat LNG and LNG Canada have proposed LNG export facilities totaling a maximum of 34 million metric tons per year of gas at the Port of Kitimat, B.C. An LNG export facility also is proposed at Prince Rupert, B.C., and additional LNG export proposals are expected.

One proposed U.S. LNG export terminal, Oregon LNG, would export Canadian natural gas from Oregon.

Paralleling Canada, U.S. companies are proposing LNG export projects.

Price impacts of U.S. and Canadian natural gas exports

While natural gas export revenue appeals to producers, U.S. and Canadian consumers dread higher prices that could result from reduced domestic supply.

Industry could be especially hard hit by rising energy prices. Canadian industry – including pulp and paper, chemical and fertilizer, iron, metals, and petroleum production and refining – represent almost 50 percent of Canadian energy consumption. U.S. industrial energy consumption is lower – about 26 percent in 2012 – but is rapidly growing in response to production-driven low energy prices. Reduced energy supply and higher energy prices could constrain industrial growth in both countries.

Controversy over constructing export facilities is expected to slow pipelines, liquefaction and port facilities over the next few years – and may defeat many proposals. Over the past two decades some energy-transport proposals have failed – the Mackenzie Delta and Alaska North Slope natural gas pipelines, for example, plus dozens of proposed LNG import terminals in Canada and the United States.

Therefore, it seems safe to predict that some of the proposed facilities will not be constructed, even if it is impossible to predict which will be built and which will not.

Ross Clark, the president of AAPG’s Canada Region, has made recommendations to this article and provides the following conclusions:

“So, at the time of this writing it appears that there is a tremendous amount of corporate and regulatory effort being expended on optimizing market conditions for oil and gas in an attempt to minimize the differences in commodity prices around the world and capture some of this price upside for North American producers, including the U.S. and Canada.

“Global arbitrage pricing differences of 20 to 30 percent for oil and 300 to 500 percent for natural gas have spurred the effort to open the very competitive North American market to world markets – especially the fast growing Southeast Asia natural gas market.

“The increased revenue received for North American oil and gas in a global competitive market place will lead to further investment in the search for energy worldwide. However, the effort to expand markets by developing infrastructure will need to be balanced with concern for the environment and the rights of stakeholders being directly affected by this development.

“It is an especially exciting time in the midstream portion of our industry and in the government regulatory agencies dealing with the proposed expansion.”

Stay tuned!

Comments (0)

 

Policy Watch

Policy Watch - Edie Allison
Edie Allison began as the Director of the AAPG Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington D.C. in 2012.

Policy Watch

Policy Watch is a monthly column of the EXPLORER written by the director of AAPG's  Geoscience and Energy Office in Washington, D.C. *The first article appeared in February 2006 under the name "Washington Watch" and the column name was changed to "Policy Watch" in January 2013 to broaden the subject matter to a more global view.

View column archives

See Also: Book

Desktop /Portals/0/images/_site/AAPG-newlogo-vertical-morepadding.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 16538 Book
Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/book-Salt-Tectonics-Sediments-and-Prospectivity-hero.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 4069 Book

See Also: Bulletin Article

The origin of thermogenic natural gas in the shallow stratigraphy of northeastern Pennsylvania is associated, in part, with interbedded coal identified in numerous outcrops of the Upper Devonian Catskill and Lock Haven Formations. Historically documented and newly identified locations of Upper Devonian coal stringers are shown to be widespread, both laterally across the region and vertically throughout the stratigraphic section of the Catskill and Lock Haven Formations. Coal samples exhibited considerable gas source potential with total organic carbon as high as 44.40% by weight, with a mean of 13.66% for 23 sample locations analyzed. Upper Devonian coal is thermogenically mature; calculated vitrinite reflectances range from 1.25% to 2.89%, with most samples falling within the dry-gas window. Source potential is further supported by gas shows observed while drilling through shallow, identifiable coal horizons, which are at times located within fresh groundwater aquifers. Thermogenic gas detected in area water wells during predrill baseline sampling is determined not only to be naturally occurring, but also common in the region.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/geologic-and-baseline-groundwater-evidence-for.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 5776 Bulletin Article

The Upper Jurassic Arab Formation in the Arabian Peninsula, the most prolific oil-bearing interval of the world, is a succession of interbedded thick carbonates and evaporites that are defined stratigraphically upsection as the Arab-D, Arab-C, Arab-B, and Arab-A. The Arab-D reservoir is the main reservoir in Khurais field, one of the largest onshore oil fields of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

In Khurais field, the Arab-D reservoir is composed of the overlying evaporitic Arab-D Member of the Arab Formation and the underlying upper part of the Jubaila Formation. It contains 11 lithofacies, listed from deepest to shallowest: (1) hardground-capped skeletal wackestone and lime mudstone; (2) intraclast floatstone and rudstone; (3) pelletal wackestone and packstone; (4) stromatoporoid wackestone, packstone, and floatstone; (5) Cladocoropsis wackestone, packstone, and floatstone; (6) Clypeina and Thaumatoporella wackestone and packstone; (7) peloidal packstone and grainstone; (8) ooid grainstone; (9) crypt-microbial laminites; (10) evaporites; and (11) stratigraphically reoccurring dolomite.

The Arab-D reservoir lithofacies succession represents shallowing-upward deposition, which, from deepest to shallowest, reflects the following depositional environments: offshore submarine turbidity fans (lithofacies 1 and 2); lower shoreface settings (lithofacies 3); stromatoporoid reef (lithofacies 4); lagoon (lithofacies 5 and 6); shallow subtidal settings (lithofacies 7 and 8); peritidal settings (lithofacies 9); and sabkhas and salinas (lithofacies 10). The depositional succession of the reservoir represents a prograding, shallow-marine, reef-rimmed carbonate shelf that was subjected to common storm abrasion, which triggered turbidites.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/arabian-carbonate-reservoirs-a-depositional-model.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 3771 Bulletin Article

See Also: Online e Symposium

As commodity prices have dropped, many shale plays have become uneconomical as statistical plays and have increasingly become recognized as geological plays demanding new insights from data.

Desktop /Portals/0/PackFlashItemImages/WebReady/oc-es-3d-seismic-profiles-of-us-shale-plays.jpg?width=50&h=50&mode=crop&anchor=middlecenter&quality=90amp;encoder=freeimage&progressive=true 1437 Online e-Symposium