wordpress.com - fnoupsgxt iones: elicit · 2016. 12. 22. · million of dollars into developing...

1
hmxorrrelxsrcsr Carbon-cost debate finds a ready'btage CALGARY }}Hiff i*'",ii:'i'fi ",il3' effect next month, are contenti- ous in Alberta, where the econo- my has sputtered as a result of the collapse in crude prices. Some of the calculus in proceed- ing with the policy is to show Canadians and others that the province is serious about clean- ing up its act as it tries to expand markets for its main product. Meanwhile, the industry's par- ticipants have been winnowed down, first by surging costs and corporate pockets found to be too shallow, then by the collapse in crude prices. Without some moonshot technology to slash costs and emissions, the big in- cumbent players with expeitise and access to capital wilfincreas- ingly dominate the landscape. Suncor Energy is a prime example, having spent more than $5-billion (Canadian) bulk- ing up on acquisitions in the oil sands over the past year while at the same time building the gr5.r- billion Fort Hills mining proleit, clue to start up in about rz months. Koch, owned by the conserva- tive billionaire brothers who famously oppose regulations to limit emissions, said Ms. Notley's carbon tax and oil sands emis- sions cap persuaded it to scrap the Muskwa oil sands develop- ment plan. But it did not release the pro- ject's supply costs - the com- plete menu of inputs that go into the ro,ooo-barrel-a-day pro- posal. Projected margins may have been razor-thin without the car- bon levy. Under the NDP plan, the extra cost of an average steam-assisted project would be 46 cents a bar- rel, with U.S. crude at about $5r (U.S.) a barrel and other assumptions for natural gas costs and assorted expenses. Indeed, in the week it buried tFhere is plenty of movement I in the oil sands all of a sud- den, and a common theme of the approvals, cancellations and sales of projects is Alberta's car- bon policies. Two players,that backed Pre- mier Rachel Notley's sweePing plans last year, Cenol'us EnergY lnc. and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., have taken major oroiects down from the shelf and 'areboised to pump hundreds of million of dollars into developing them. Koch Industries Inc. of Wichita, Kan., asked the province's energy regulator to scratch the aPProval for an $8oo-million develoP- ment, blaming economic uncer- tainty and costs associated with the NDP government's moves to fisht climate change. l.lorwav's Statoil ASA said it had "bent itS cost and emission curves" by striking a deal to sell its Alberta oil sands assets to Athabasca Oil Corp., and booking a loss of at least $soo-million (U.S.) on the transaction. There are twin messages here.' The first is that oil sands by nature are expensive, and not every company will invest over the long haul if it believes it can make quicker money elsewhere' Multinationals can pick and choose. The second is that not all proposed projects are ofhigtt' enough quality to warrant the in- vestrnent needed to get them uP and running, especially if crude prices languish. Some take more steam, or other processing, to get the bitumen out. No carbon levY, or lack thereof, will change that. ,ones, Page 4 for a steam-driven pr6iecf iailed Selina that would produce rz,5oob/d, even as Alberta proceeds with its carbon poli- cies. . Statoil, 67 per cent owned by the Norwegian government, decided to exit the oil sands after years oftaking flak from environmentalists at home. It had already shrunk its ambi- tions, having mothballed a major expansion of its produc- tion south of Fort McMurray Alta., two years ago. In 2olo, the companv had pledged to reduce its emissions M.9.sk1va, Koch, in partnership with Pengrowth Energy, applied from the. oil sands z5 per cent by zozo and 40 per cent by zoz5. Now, as it trumpets the redui- tion in its carbon footprint from selling its holdings, the project contrnues to operate, only under a different corporate brand. . Meanwhile, money is still flow- ing into the oil sands, as Cana_ dian Natural and Cenovus have shown by expanding their pr;-- Jects. Tfey have to deal with rising carbon costs along with all thE other companies*but seem to hit on a formda 8f high-quality leases, reduced costs, economies of.scale and long-time supplier relationships. FnouPSGXt Iones: Alberta's contentious carbon taxes elicit varied responses

Upload: others

Post on 22-Sep-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: WordPress.com - FnouPSGXt Iones: elicit · 2016. 12. 22. · million of dollars into developing them. Koch Industries Inc. of Wichita, Kan., asked the province's energy regulator

hmxorrrelxsrcsr

Carbon-costdebate findsa ready'btage

CALGARY

}}Hiff i*'",ii:'i'fi ",il3'effect next month, are contenti-ous in Alberta, where the econo-my has sputtered as a result ofthe collapse in crude prices.Some of the calculus in proceed-ing with the policy is to showCanadians and others that theprovince is serious about clean-ing up its act as it tries toexpand markets for its mainproduct.

Meanwhile, the industry's par-ticipants have been winnoweddown, first by surging costs andcorporate pockets found to betoo shallow, then by the collapsein crude prices. Without some

moonshot technology to slashcosts and emissions, the big in-cumbent players with expeitiseand access to capital wilfincreas-ingly dominate the landscape.

Suncor Energy is a primeexample, having spent morethan $5-billion (Canadian) bulk-ing up on acquisitions in the oilsands over the past year while atthe same time building the gr5.r-billion Fort Hills mining proleit,clue to start up in about rzmonths.

Koch, owned by the conserva-tive billionaire brothers whofamously oppose regulations tolimit emissions, said Ms. Notley'scarbon tax and oil sands emis-

sions cap persuaded it to scrapthe Muskwa oil sands develop-ment plan.

But it did not release the pro-ject's supply costs - the com-plete menu of inputs that gointo the ro,ooo-barrel-a-day pro-posal.

Projected margins may havebeen razor-thin without the car-bon levy.

Under the NDP plan, the extracost of an average steam-assistedproject would be 46 cents a bar-rel, with U.S. crude at about $5r(U.S.) a barrel and otherassumptions for natural gascosts and assorted expenses.

Indeed, in the week it buried

tFhere is plenty of movementI in the oil sands all of a sud-

den, and a common theme of theapprovals, cancellations andsales of projects is Alberta's car-bon policies.

Two players,that backed Pre-mier Rachel Notley's sweePingplans last year, Cenol'us EnergYlnc. and Canadian NaturalResources Ltd., have taken majororoiects down from the shelf and'areboised to pump hundreds ofmillion of dollars into developingthem.

Koch Industries Inc. of Wichita,Kan., asked the province's energyregulator to scratch the aPProvalfor an $8oo-million develoP-ment, blaming economic uncer-tainty and costs associated withthe NDP government's moves tofisht climate change.

l.lorwav's Statoil ASA said it had"bent itS cost and emissioncurves" by striking a deal to sellits Alberta oil sands assets toAthabasca Oil Corp., and bookinga loss of at least $soo-million(U.S.) on the transaction.

There are twin messages here.'The first is that oil sands by

nature are expensive, and notevery company will invest overthe long haul if it believes it canmake quicker money elsewhere'Multinationals can pick andchoose. The second is that not allproposed projects are ofhigtt'enough quality to warrant the in-vestrnent needed to get them uPand running, especially if crudeprices languish. Some take moresteam, or other processing, to getthe bitumen out. No carbon levY,or lack thereof, will change that.,ones, Page 4

for a steam-driven pr6iecf iailedSelina that would producerz,5oob/d, even as Albertaproceeds with its carbon poli-cies.

. Statoil, 67 per cent owned by

the Norwegian government,decided to exit the oil sandsafter years oftaking flak fromenvironmentalists at home. Ithad already shrunk its ambi-tions, having mothballed amajor expansion of its produc-tion south of Fort McMurrayAlta., two years ago.

In 2olo, the companv hadpledged to reduce its emissions

M.9.sk1va, Koch, in partnershipwith Pengrowth Energy, applied

from the. oil sands z5 per cent byzozo and 40 per cent by zoz5.Now, as it trumpets the redui-tion in its carbon footprint fromselling its holdings, the projectcontrnues to operate, only undera different corporate brand.. Meanwhile, money is still flow-ing into the oil sands, as Cana_dian Natural and Cenovus haveshown by expanding their pr;--Jects.

Tfey have to deal with risingcarbon costs along with all thEother companies*but seem tohit on a formda 8f high-qualityleases, reduced costs, economiesof.scale and long-time supplierrelationships.

FnouPSGXt

Iones: Alberta's contentious carbon taxes elicit varied responses