<Khosla Responds: "Imagining the Future of Gasoline: Reality or Blue-sky Dreaming?"The Oil DrumIs a Wall of Oil Heading for the Market?>
<DrumBeat: August 9, 2006DrumBeatDrumBeat: August 11, 2006>

337 comments on DrumBeat: August 10, 2006

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

porsena on August 10, 2006 - 11:31pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
BP's 2005 figures for Canada (mmbpd):
  Production -  3.047
  Consumption - 2.241
Difference is 806, not far off the 841 figure.

But Canada imports 934 mmbpd (not counting product imports), mainly from Europe. Added to the 806, that gives 1.74 mmbpd as exports. This is intermediate between the two figures above.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on August 10, 2006 - 11:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I think that is exactly the million barrels we were looking for. Thank you.

Now for extra credit, can you explain why? When you say Europe, I'm guessing that's mainly the North Sea? or Russia?

Refining ability? To send the product to the States?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
porsena on August 11, 2006 - 12:18am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Mainly from the North Sea. Remember that almost all Canada's imports are consumed in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces.

Product exports Canada->US in 2005 were 558 mbpd on top of the  1643 mbpd crude exports, according to BP. Sorry about the units mixup above.    

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on August 11, 2006 - 4:49am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Remember that almost all Canada's imports are consumed in Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces.

What are you, crazy:) How was I supposed to remember that? I didn't even know it to remember it. Seriously. You should post more often here. We really, really like this kind of information. At least I do. Screw up the units all you want, we'll fix'em later.

Why can't Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces get their stuff via pipeline from Western Canada? That's the part I'm unclear about. It really makes more sense to ship crude from Europe rather than pipe it from next door?

Is it possible to make this equation more efficient?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 11, 2006 - 12:48pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
It is more efficient (net transportation wise) to supply the Upper West (US) & Midwest from Alberta pipelines and Eastern Canada from the sea than vica versa.  Look at a map.

New Orleans would like to barge more oil products up-river instead though.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Oil CEO on August 11, 2006 - 3:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Absolutely. So the next question is, why do we as intelligent individuals, as a society, allow The Powers That Be to manipulate the numbers so that things can always be something they are not.

We complain about transparency. It is time to clean up our own  back yard.

Canada - (and my beef is not with Canada, it is with us) - Canada exports 840,000 bpd, not 1,840,000. Or, conversely, it does both. But we need a standard for reporting these numbers.   Else the manipulators will run circles around us. They will use any number they want, whenever it suits their purposes.

Are we on the same team?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.