From the Williston Economic Summit -- 2014, "Port of Vancouver."
Slide 6 -- an eye-opener. Note all the crude oil pipelines in the west (Washington state, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico). After looking at that slide, then vote on the poll regarding CBR at the sidebar on the right.
Slide 8: cost to ship crude oil over next two years -- California, by rail, $13 to $15/bbl; Bakken rail to Cushing, $9/bbl; Alberta to east coast by rail, $9 to $12/bbl. By ship, Brent to the US, $0 to $9.
Slide 9: Bakken crude by rail to San Francisco ($13/bbl); to Los Angeles ($14/bbl) -- remember, there are no pipelines to California
Slide 10: West Coast refineries increasingly dependent on foreign oil
Slide 11: by 2025 -- zero oil from Alaska North Slope -- an incredible slide
Slide 12: opposition in California to CBR is growing ... do you see where this presentation is headed ..? Remember, this is a "Port of Vancouver" presentation.
The most important data this presentation did not share: the likelihood that California in-state crude oil production could also decline significantly. It was touched on in slide 13, but easily overlooked. At best, there is no increase in California oil production from now to eternity.
Pov is just increasing general public awareness of the capabilities of it's tenants regarding oil transport by rail or ocean tanker. What they seem to be saying is that cbr to west coast refineries costs about the same as cbr to gulf or east coast +- a few percent. Tanker south into ca is also about the same as crude. I am certain all of the bakken producers are familiar with all of these details and more and have been all along.
ReplyDeleteRegarding export of oil to Asia, that is a nonstarter now and into the distant future. As long as us is net importer, and those imports depend on sources that can be disrupted (me, OPEC) the politicians do not want to have export obligations in the event of an import disruption.
What surprised me most was a) the lack of pipelines going into California (previously reported, bu the map is worth a thousand words); and, b) pretty much the end of oil from Alaska in any meaningful amount in another 10 - 20 years, and already decreasing. What was not said was the future of drilling for oil in California itself; that, too, could become quite problematic exacerbating California's problems but a boon for shale plays outside the state.
Delete