Hugo Chàvez for Premier

Posted by Jeff Rubin on February 24th, 2010 under SmallerWorldTags: , , ,  • View Comments

Is there heartache in the heartland? As Albertans shoulder the weight of a new $4.5 billion budget deficit (not to mention the burden of equalization payments to the rest of Canada) despite the fact that they own the world’s largest oil reserve open to private investment, some might suggest that something is seriously amiss in the heartland. But instead of imposing painful health care spending cuts or equally unappealing personal tax hikes, maybe there is another, better way to go.

Oil is already trading at around $80 per barrel, and we are in the very early stages of a global economic recovery. Surely time is on Alberta’s side, and on that of the royalties the province commands from the billions of barrels of oil trapped in its tar sands. Those royalties are already larger than the ones from natural gas, historically the province’s fiscal staple.

What Albertans don’t seem to realize is that they might just be in a position to take a bigger slice of bitumen’s growing royalty pie—particularly when their competitor as the primary source of tomorrow’s oil supply happens to be Venezuela’s Orinoco tar sands.

The latest estimate by the US Geological Survey claims there are 513 billion barrels of heavy oil beneath the steaming jungles of Amazonia, roughly three times the deposits in Alberta. But there is an even bigger difference between the two resources, and it’s not what lies underground.

Venezuela, like most places in the world today, believes that its vast oil reserves belong to its state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela. In Canada, by contrast, not only is there no state oil company (Petrocan, long privatized, was recently swallowed by Suncor) but there are virtually no foreign ownership restrictions on oil reserves. In a world of rampant resource nationalism, that makes Alberta a very special place.

With the enormous deposits in the Orinoco now off limits, Alberta’s tar sands represent almost three quarters of the oil reserves in the world that are open to private investment and ownership—and by that I mean where good corporate citizens like ExxonMobil can stick a huge straw in them and siphon off the resulting petrodollars to their head offices.

In Venezuela, the company had to walk away from one such straw, a multi-billion-dollar one that it built for the Orinoco tar sands (the 120,000 barrel-per-day Cerro Negro heavy crude upgrader), when President Hugo Chàvez decided to reroute that outward-bound flow of petrodollars. Next thing you know, Exxon (and its Canadian subsidiary, Imperial Oil) is pouring billions of dollars into its Kearl Lake, Alberta, operation, a project that was previously deemed too expensive.

The longer the Orinoco river basin remains a place to fish for peacock bass instead of extracting millions of barrels of heavy oil, the stronger Alberta taxpayers’ position is.

So forget about taking a new political direction with the upstart Wildrose Alliance Party. Facing a $4.5 billion deficit, maybe it’s time Albertans took a page out of Hugo’s playbook, and started getting a bigger share back from their biggest resource.

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Mike
    Jeff---you nearly ran me over in Toronto as I was leaving a Fund manager presentation--LOL

    If I was not in the middle of the Intersection at Yonge @ Wellington with you yelling at me " Nice Book" and my having to take a second look ( thought you would have driven a more domestic vehicle LOL) I would have got you to sign 'your' book.

    Send me an Email--coffee sometime? It was Peak 'cheap' Oil that made me an early player in U3O8.

    I found this site years ago ( I brought first E mail billing to NA markets as well)

    Link: www.dieoff.org

    I suppose
  • marcovth
  • Mr. Rubin:
    Interested to hear a blog post from you on the ClimateGate issue and whether we really need to be focused so much on Climate Change / Global Warming along with the associated "Carbon Tariffs" you've supported in the past, or should we instead focus on the Earth's real problems:

    - Resource Depletion
    - Environmental Destruction
    - Species Extinction

    So in summary, how does ClimateGate change your opinion on Carbon Tariffs and if it does not affect your opinion whatsoever, why not?

    I've bought and read your book and would like clarification on your position because you almost had me convinced, until I realized that Global Warming may in fact be yet another taxation and enrichment scam of the elite.
  • marcovth
    Newsweek: So Much for Russia as an "Energy Superpower"
    http://mobile.newsweek.com/s/2499/InnerRSSFeedReader09?itemUriVal=feed%23jFboqIjgAE9509Q1kb%2FPAT0yI7NNUoT45u&count1=0&fullStory=true&HeaderTltle=

    Five years ago, when oil prices were climbing steadily and economists were stoking fears about peak oil and gas, it seemed that major energy producers like Russia were holding all the cards. Then-president Vladimir Putin spoke of his country as an "energy superpower" and used energy supplies as a blunt instrument of Kremlin foreign policy. Gas cutoffs to Ukraine caused panic in Europe, while Western energy companies fell over each other to get a slice of Russia's oil and gas fields.

    But all that is over. Today, the super-giant Shtockmann natural-gas field under the Arctic sea-Russia's only big hydrocarbon discovery since Soviet times-has just been mothballed due to the towering cost of extracting the undersea gas. At the same time, worldwide demand for Russia's gas has plummeted. And meanwhile, the government has punctured investor confidence by pressuring BP, one of the few major foreign investors left in Russia's energy sector, to hand over a giant Siberian gas field to a government-owned rival. It's time for Moscow to kiss goodbye those dreams of energy hegemony.

    One problem is that the recession has eviscerated European demand for Russian natural gas (consumption dipped by 7 percent in 2009). Another is that demand in the United States for imported natural gas has fallen off too. Thanks to shale gas and other unconventional sources like tar sands, the U.S. is now close to self-sufficient in natural gas. It's a nightmare for Shtockmann, where the business plan hinged on freezing the product into liquified natural gas, or LNG, for export to the United States.

    That made the Shtockmann field, with reserves of 3.7 trillion cubic meters, seem less like the strategic future of Russian natural gas and more like an M&M that fell behind the couch-tasty, but not strictly necessary and very hard to reach. The $20 billion cost of extracting the deep-buried gas in the harsh conditions of the Arctic has proved prohibitive for Gazprom and its minority partners, Total of France and Statoil of Norway.

    That's a problem for Gazprom, which was the main cudgel of Putin's foreign policy just four years ago, when he played one European country against another in their eagerness to lay Gazprom pipelines across their territory. Now the European market seems oversupplied. More worrying still, Gazprom's traditional suppliers (gas fields in the Central Asian nations of Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan) have begun opening their own direct pipelines to China, where gas consumption has a future. And though Gazprom still controls about 17 percent of the world's proven natural-gas reserves, many of its existing fields are beginning to run dry. Getting at the remainder-for instance at the Bovanenkovo field in the remote Yamal Peninsula in Siberia-will need massive investment of cash and know-how. Who wants to sink in that kind of money with no guarantee of returns?

    That's why the latest attack on BP is so strange-and so dumb. A time of falling demand, unstable energy prices, and investor nervousness about emerging markets might seem like a bad moment to crack down on one of the few large foreign investors in Russia's energy sector. But that hasn't stopped Russia's Natural Environment Inspectorate, or RosPrirodNadzor, from threatening to throw BP off the giant Kovykta gas field in Eastern Siberia. The official reason for the threat is alleged environmental infractions-the same reasons cited by the Russian state when Royal Dutch Shell was persuaded to sell Gazprom its stake in an oilfield in Sakhalin two years ago for below market value. But the real reason seems to be that the state oil company Rosneft has its eye on BP's field.

    This is hardly the first time Russia's government has shaken down BP-or other investors. In 2007 the Russian Natural Resources Ministry threatened to tear up the Kovykta contract because of alleged violations of the exploration timetable. Then, the predator was Gazprom, which wanted Kovykta for a knockdown price and was also at the time hustling to get a slice of a BP gas project in Trinidad and Tobago. That deal stalled on legal wrangling and was ultimately sunk by the 2008 economic crisis, which reduced Gazprom's voracious appetite for expansion. But now, it seems, Rosneft is taking up where Gazprom left off-and in the process reminding investors in all sectors of the dangers of doing business in Russia. The difference is, of course, that in 2007 energy prices were rising and plentiful investment money was wandering the world, desperately seeking high returns whatever the risk. Today, the opposite is true. "It is not just a big gas field at stake here. It is about the country's entire investment climate," says Valery Nesterov, an oil and gas analyst from Troika Dialog brokerage. "Russia has to attract foreigners to develop Yamal and offshore fields."

    Russia remains the largest exporter of oil and gas in the world-bigger even than Saudi Arabia. But unlike the Gulf nations, Russia is fast pumping its existing wells of both oil and gas dry. To tap its reserves-and to maintain Russia's status as an "energy superpower"-Russia needs to stop ripping off its investors just because a demand falloff has hurt its bottom line. Gas consumption will come back. But Russia's superpower aspirations won't also rise if Russia has alienated its partners. Without them, its new reserves-like the Shtockmann field-will remain buried in the ground.
  • marcovth
    This website is in Dutch, but the video interview with Jeremy Rifkin is in English.
    Very interesting. Just click on the video.

    http://www.eenvandaag.nl/binnenland/35444/topeconoom_rifkin_niemand_ziet_de_crisis_die_komt_
  • robertmackidd
    I have read Mr. Rubin's book and for the most part found it very informative. I admit some parts were a bit on the futuristic side. The unfortunate conclusion I drew from the text is that in a lot of ways Mr. rubin may be dead on.

    Friday last (02-10-10) the Winnipeg Free Press did a piece on the Manitoba Trucking Association annual forum. As a sidebar they included comments from an individual that had spent 20+ years studying energy for the federal government. His conclusion was that manufacturing in Canada must be brought back from overseas because the global transportation system will be to expensive to sustain International Trade.

    I have spent 14 years as an International Trade Specialist. There are two related issues that keep me awake at night; First is the price of oil and its effect on global transportation networks, second is the Canadian dollar which rises as a direct result of increased oil prices.

    I to am starting to think that possibly the best of the export business may be past. Certainly the decline will not be immediate but a good bump in the cost of oil will derail the train.



    I have spent 14 years as an International Trade Specialist
blog comments powered by Disqus