• 4 minutes Is $60/Bbl WTI still considered a break even for Shale Oil
  • 7 minutes Oil Price Editorial: Beware Of Saudi Oil Tanker Sabotage Stories
  • 11 minutes Mueller Report Brings Into Focus Obama's Attempted Coup Against Trump
  • 15 minutes Wonders of Shale- Gas,bringing investments and jobs to the US
  • 11 hours Adsorbent natural gas tanks are revolutionary.
  • 4 mins Visualizing How Much Oil Is In An Electric Vehicle (Hint: a heckuva lot)
  • 1 hour Total nonsense in climate debate
  • 10 hours Apartheid Is Still There: Post-apartheid South Africa Is World’s Most Unequal Country
  • 11 hours Evil Awakens: Fascist Symbols And Rhetoric On Rise In Italian EU Vote
  • 13 hours IMO2020 To scrub or not to scrub
  • 7 hours Theresa May to Step Down
  • 1 day Look at the LONGER TERM bigger picture of international oil & gas. Ignore temporary hiccups.
  • 2 days Will Canada drop Liberals, vote in Conservatives?
  • 19 hours IMO 2020 could create fierce competition for scarce water resources
  • 2 hours Some Good News on Climate Change Maybe
  • 2 days Canada's Uncivil Oil War : 78% of Voters Cite *Energy* as the Top Issue
  • 2 days Trump needs to educate US companies and citizens on Chinese Communist Party and People's Liberation Army. This is real ECONOMIC WARFARE. To understand Chinese warfare read General Sun Tzu's "Art of War" . . . written 500 B.C.
Alt Text

Why Oil Is Still Underpriced

Oil prices are pulled in…

Alt Text

Chinese Oil Buyers Shun U.S. Crude

Chinese oil traders and refiners…

Vanand Meliksetian

Vanand Meliksetian

Vanand Meliksetian is an energy and utilities consultant who has worked with several major international energy companies. He has an LL.M. from VU Amsterdam University…

More Info

Trending Discussions

NAFTA Rift Could Be A Boon For Canadian Oil

Looming trade wars have made frequent headlines since the election of U.S. president Donald J. Trump. His view on the U.S.’ position in global trade is that for too long the country has been the “piggy bank” of the world.

Obviously, this has put some strain on relations with trading partners. Trump’s belligerent language and willingness to make use of the U.S.’ disproportionate influence in global economics through its financial and monetary system, has upset markets and partners. One area of attention is NAFTA. Although partners Canada and Mexico have been startled by the change of attitude of the U.S. towards the trade agreement, the negotiations could also provide an opportunity.

While China is the largest trading partner of the U.S. when measured in value, the total economic activity between NAFTA’s members is far greater. Trade between Canada and the U.S. reached a total of $647 billion in 2017, with a small surplus of $8 billion for the U.S. Regardless of these numbers, an unprecedented clash occurred between the partners, during and after the G7 summit of 8 and 9 June concerning the planned tariffs on Canadian products.

Spurred by president Trump’s strong language, Canada, Mexico and the U.S. have been renegotiating NAFTA. In the case of Canada, these talks are an opportunity to change certain aspects of the agreement concerning the crucial hydrocarbons sector. More specifically, the preferential access of the U.S. to the energy resources of its northern neighbour, which is a major impediment for Canadian policy and energy security. Canadian export faces strategic restrictions as the overwhelming amount of oil is produced in landlocked Alberta. The absence of sufficient infrastructure to either the east or west coast, and existing pipelines to the south mean that the majority of produced oil is sent to the U.S. Related: OPEC Meeting Could End Without Decision

According to the ‘proportionality clause’, article 605, Canada has to reserve a fixed ratio of its hydrocarbons production for export to U.S. customers regardless of domestic needs or federal policy. This effectively gives American companies considerable control over Canada’s resources. Under the deal, 75 percent of all oil produced and imported, and 50 percent of gas needs to be exported to the U.S.

This means that even under exceptional circumstances, such as the boycott of 1973 by Arab countries, Canadian oil earmarked for export could not be diverted for domestic purposes. Due to a lack of transportation options between east and west and the proportionality clause, most of the oil in Eastern Canada is imported. In 2016 around 900.000 barrels a day came from several sources costing around $14,4 billion per year.

Related: The Permian Faces Shut Ins Due To Oil Pipeline Shortage

The U.S. currently is the destination for 99 percent of Canada’s oil exports. This gives Washington and American producers a major strategic advantage as producers do not have many options. The price of West Canadian Select usually trades for $14 to $16 dollars a barrel less than the New York traded West Texas Intermediary due to quality differences and transportation costs. Earlier this year that had risen to $30 a barrel, but the difference has somewhat decrease recently.

The need for additional markets has increased due to two reasons. First, the shale revolution has dramatically increased the production of oil in the U.S., which hit 7 million bpd in April. Next to that, Canadian oil production is expected to rise with an additional 1.4 million bpd from currently to 5.6 million bpd in 2035. A combination of decreasing demand, rising U.S. production and increased domestic output requires additional destination markets.

Some politicians and other stakeholders have been lobbying to revitalize the Energy East pipeline that would transport oil from Alberta to the eastern shores of Canada. It would greatly reduce the dependency on the international markets and increase the share of domestic consumption. Obviously, the latter has consequences for the preferential access of U.S. companies to Canadian oil as the share of export to the south would decrease.

To the west, as early as 2013, Houston based Kinder Morgan started with the planning and construction of a second part of the Trans Mountain pipeline to triple capacity from Alberta to the shores of British Columbia for transpacific export. However, the decentralized political system, British Colombia’s strong disapproval of the construction of the pipeline, and the uncertain regulatory environment led to the withdrawal of the U.S. company and the (temporary) nationalization of the pipeline.

Although the government of Justin Trudeau has received a lot of criticism for bailing out the U.S. company and its unfinished multibillion dollar project, the pipeline could significantly improve Canada’s position on the negotiating table. By providing producers alternative options and markets (at least in part), negative developments for the Canadian energy sector can be mitigated by supplementing supply and demand of different regions. Furthermore, extra capacity is a bargaining chip in the hand of Canada’s negotiators vis-à-vis the U.S.’ as the proportionality clause is a serious impediment for the oil industry.

By Vanand Meliksetian for Oilprice.com

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage

Trending Discussions

Leave a comment
  • Raj Rajesh on June 22 2018 said:
    This is called finding excessive optimism.

    vested and irrational article.
  • Ralph Elogio on June 23 2018 said:
    British Columbia not British Colombia
  • MontanaOsprey on June 25 2018 said:
    Relying on Trudeau for any sort of business is a fool’s errand. “All hat, no cattkple”. LOL
  • anthony hartnell on June 27 2018 said:
    Canada has relied far too long on the US for all it's exports. Not only do they need the TMX, they also need Northern Gateway to Prince Rupert and Energy East to the Atlantic coast. Trudeau is a fool having cancelled both those vital projects. Canada loses $1.9 billion a day selling it's oil to the US...........Northern Gateway was approved by the former govt and oil would have and should have been flowing to Rupert for export to Asia by now.........

Leave a comment

Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News