Skip to Content
vo-banner.jpg

As Americans max out on tar sands, more pipelines head for Vancouver and B.C.

Read More:

 Americans are in deep trouble and their years of absorbing the tar sands growing production are over. This is a two part series. In today’s first part we explore the dramatic decline in American oil imports that set the stage for the Keytsone XL pipeline protests and delay. Tomorrow’s second part will explain just what that means for Vancouver and BC as a proposed string of gigantic tar sands pipelines heads for our coast.


The happy storyline running for years now in Canada is that Americans benefit from buying more tar sands oil: Americans need more oil, and reliable Canada has lots to sell. Big Tar has been ramping up carbon extraction for years, and Americans have been sucking it all up. America’s Big Gulp has allowed the Alberta tar sands to rapidly expand without really bothering the rest of us Canadians with their mess. But not anymore.

Three dramatic things have shifted for Americans.

ONE: Economic security threatened

The rapid doubling in oil prices has made importing oil economically disastrous for America. In 2005 Americans paid an average of $40 per imported barrel. By 2010 they were paying $74 and today the price hovers around $100. When you are the world’s largest oil importer that hurts big time.

In response the Americans have gone into crisis mode, cutting nearly a Keystone XL worth of oil imports every year. Half of that came from a rapid 16 per cent increase in domestic production, and half from a 9 per cent decrease in demand. In just five years the USA slashed oil imports by 25 per cent, cutting off the import flow equal to four Keystone XL pipelines. 

Yet despite importing a billion barrels less oil than just five years ago, the rise in oil prices means Americans had to pay an extra $74 billion. America’s oil imports fell 25 per cent but their bill actually surged 40 per cent -- to $256 billion. At that rate a trillion dollars will leave their country every four years.

They are bleeding dollars much faster than they can cut their oil import addiction.  Now imagine that five year trend happening once more. Pulling out the stops they manage to slash imports by another 25 per cent, shutting down the flow equal to three more Keystone XL pipelines. But if oil rises at the same rate they will owe $360 billion. Down the rat hole they go.

This is what a popping carbon bubble looks like to those that are invested in expensive high-carbon infrastructure.

Obama could never have delayed the Keystone XL if Americans really needed to import more oil. They don’t. Just the opposite.

TWO: National security threatened

For obvious national security reasons, America is very careful to not put all their oil import eggs in any one basket. As the chart below shows they spread their oil imports out over 54 nations.

What jumps out of the chart, however, is the huge share now supplied by Canada – a modern record for any USA oil supplier of 25 per cent. Just five years ago Canada supplied 16 per cent. The push to buy Canadian oil has been so successful that Canada has zoomed past all national security oil supply limitations that the Americans have maintained for decades. In sheer volume, America relies on Canada for nearly a billion barrels.

Even without new pipelines, Canada’s share will soon surge to between 33 per cent and 50 per cent. How likely is it that Americans will opt for even deeper dependence on Canada than they are already signed up for? It depends how long their memory is.

In 1973 Elvis Presley rocked the world, Nixon agreed to peace with Vietnam and the CN Tower went up...

(6) Comments

eddieo November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

All Citizens in BC must stand up to Big Tar and not only prevent any new pipelines from reaching our coast, but work to reverse the Harper / Campbelll overturn of the ban ono tankers off our coast.

 

Our waters, air and land cannot afford this folly so that a few multinationals can enrich themselves.

Al Norte November 29th 2011 | 3:15 PM

Since Keystone XL was rejected, the cheerleading for Enbridge's Northern Gateway from Harper, Oliver and Redford is downright scary. I wouldn't be surprised to see Harper tinkling with the federal review process in a way similar to proroguing Parliament - shutting it down before everyone's voice can be heard. BC's coast will not be sacrificed for tar sands - we must all stand up against the myriad of proposals on the table.

Look forward to the second part of this series tomorrow.

Phillip Martin PhD, MSc November 29th 2011 | 5:17 PM
Regardless of your political point of view, at least have the intelligence to call the resource by its proper name OILSANDS. Tar is a man made product and Alberta makes no tar. Bituminous sands extraction was pioneered by Sun Oil of Philadelphia in 1967 at around 45,000 barrels per day. Canada is the largest supplier of energy to USA, something you seem to hate. But China has already invested 9 BILLION dollars in three plants with 20 billion available shortly via SINOPEC. If OBAMA does not want our oil CHINA DOES. Chinese engineers and geologists are already in Alberta. You can foam at the mouth and distort the facts all you want but your $$$ from the Saudis will not change anything. Pity that you cannot be a positive organisation but we dont care for whiners. Keystone will proceed. Oil to China will proceed and all your garbage about corrosion is utter crap. I am qualified in Petroleum Metallurgy and this oil is no different than conventional. Sad that you spread this crap like GOEBBELS did in 1942. You revel in unsubtantiated distortions about our oil. Congress was in Alberta and examined it. YOU have NEVER been in Alberta. Real experts in absentia. Hypocrisy comes to mind. Have a great day bro.
Barry Saxifrage November 29th 2011 | 8:20 PM

Dr. Martin, the terms "tar sands" and "oilsands" have been used interchangably from day one in Alberta. The old timers used both all the time. The historian use both. In recent years the terms have taken on meaning for each side of the climate-stability vs. cheap-energy debate. Those who focus on climate-stability tend to use "tar sands" because it sounds dirtier which is their concern. Those that focus on cheap-energy tend to use "oilsands" (or "OILSANDS" as you call them) because oil is their main concern. On the rest of your comments, perhaps you should read my article again as I think you missed things I did say and seemed to read things I didn't say.

Joseph Fournier January 18th 2012 | 7:19 PM

Barry does bad research. Check for yourselves people. Over the past four years, US annual demand has varied from 20 to 21 million barrels per day. US oil imports vary from 10 to 12 million barrels per day. Canadian oil exports are almost 2 million per day. Barry also fails to point out that US domestic oil production from shale oil in the Bakken is growing at an exponential rate and that a midstream bottleneck exists right now, keeping the light sweet crude in North Dakota from making it to refineries in the south. The Keystone XL would have allowed Bakken Oil to also make its way into regional reserves. But hey, lets keep on giving hundreds of billions to hostile nations and let Canada look like a big bad guy! Damn, it is time that hard working and intelligent Canadians stand up!

Jeffrey Simpson May 18th 2013 | 10:10 AM

The big banks are very aware of the prospect of an oil bubble and six of the largest banks in the world, including Citigroup, have very recently united to form a sustainable future fund for non-fossil fuels. As BP stated in their 2013 energy report, there is oil, there is coal, and there is natural gas and they are busy bringing as much of it to market as quickly as possible. A problem arises however, if humans burn all these fossil fuels - it will cause ecological catastrophe. Pension funds are now moving out of fossil fuels and looking for other sources of income. The oil bubble is building and the collapse will be really ugly for those who have not made the transition to non-fossil fuels.