From The Globe and Mail, “Canada’s economy keeps roaring ahead“:

The Canadian economy, already the envy of the Group of Seven, is within striking distance of returning to its pre-recession peak.

Fuelled by a hot housing market, a rebounding manufacturing sector, higher incomes and a mini-hiring boom, the economy expanded in the first three months of the year at the fastest annualized pace in more than a decade. The stronger-than-expected 6.1-per-cent rate reported by Statistics Canada Monday was more than twice the rate of growth in the United States in the same period.

Looking at the March update, as well, we’d highlight the energy sector. More from the StatsCan release:

Manufacturing rose 1.8% in March with 20 of the 21 major groups advancing. Manufacturers of machinery, primary and fabricated metal products, as well as non-metallic mineral and food products recorded significant production increases.

Mining and oil and gas extraction rose 2.7%, mainly as a result of a significant increase in oil extraction. Increased activity at copper, nickel, lead and zinc mines, as well as at gold and silver ore mines also contributed to the growth. Support activities for mining and oil and gas extraction retreated after seven consecutive monthly increases.

From The Calgary Herald, “Oilsands billions expected to be unlocked“:

CALGARY – Steadily rising oil prices will combine with lower costs to put some of the more than $100 billion in cancelled oilsands projects back on the front burner, according to a new study.

“I think we’re going to see over the next six to eight months more projects coming on,” said research director David McColl of the Canadian Energy Research Institute.

See also The Edmonton Journal, “Alberta oilsands could deliver $850B in royalties by 2035: research institute”

There are those among the environmental groups and in Congress who look askance at developing oil sands because they are comparatively energy-intensive to developing other, more traditional forms of oil. To limit U.S. access to oil produced from our nation’s No. 1 energy supplier, Canada, they’re trying political feints like a “low carbon fuel standard.” Because if the United States doesn’t consume it, nobody will, right?

From The Globe and Mail, “OPTI Canada on lookout for buyer“:

In recent months, a resurgent interest in the oil sands has brought multibillion-dollar investments from Chinese and South Korean interests. In August, PetroChina Co. Ltd. bought a 60-per-cent stake in two oil sands projects from Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. Last month, the Korea National Oil Corp. bought out Harvest Energy Trust for $1.8-billion in cash, plus $2.3-billion in assumed debt.

For more on CERI and its studies, click here. (However, this latest study is not yet online.)

Let’s start with some basic facts about Canada’s contribution’s to the U.S. economy From the Energy Information Administration background sheet:

In 2006, Canada produced 19.3 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 87 percent, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 44 percent. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest source of U.S. energy imports. Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports. Recognizing the importance of the energy trade between the two countries, both participate in the North American Energy Working Group, which seeks to improve energy integration and cooperation between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.

Our emphasis. As an ally, free country, and dependable energy supplier, Canada is an essential contributor of U.S. energy security.

Some groups are dedicated to crippling that energy production — and U.S. energy use –  by demonizing petroleum produced from the Alberta oil sands. And, by making oil sands a bete noire, they hope to prevent development of similar U.S. energy resources such as shale oil. The anti-energy, anti-growth agenda will be on display this week when Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, comes to Washington, D.C., for a meeting with President Obama.

From The Globe and Mail, “Oil sands under attack on environment“:

The environmental battle over Alberta’s oil sands is going global, forcing the industry to respond to new attacks on its record and putting fresh pressure on Ottawa.

The Calgary-based industry is accustomed to defending its image in North America, but it now faces a multifront war. That growing global opposition is highlighted by its role in today’s federal election in Norway, where the state-owned oil company’s plans for the oil sands have sparked controversy.

As well, a documentary that premiered in Switzerland and is now playing at the Toronto International Film Festival depicts the projects’ devastating environmental impact; and a delegation of Chinese journalists is planning a visit to the scarred landscape of northeastern Alberta.

At the same time, U.S. activists are continuing their attacks in Washington, scheduling a news conference this week ahead of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s visit with President Barack Obama to highlight the dramatic increase in emissions that would occur if oil sands production is expanded as planned.

Along with tendentious documentaries, the latest tactic for attacking Canadian oil is the low-carbon fuel standard, which we wrote about here and here. As the industry alliance, Secure Our Fuels, explains, the standard attempts to shut out the U.S. No. 1 foreign supplier of energy:

Under an LCFS, if the oil isn’t “Jed Clampett” ready – that is, able to be produced without much time, talent or effort – it isn’t a form that’s treated kindly. And since so much of Canada’s oil resources are classified as “heavy,” very little of it will be eligible for shipment to U.S. markets – forcing American consumers to contract with foreign, unstable suppliers half-a-world away instead.

Exactly right. U.S. economic growth, our national prosperity, is going to require the use of petroleum for many decades to come. Putting one dependable supplier, Canada, off limits will raise the cost of energy, slow domestic economic growth, and at the same time make the U.S. more reliant on less secure suppliers like Venezuela and Middle Eastern countries. The opponents of Albertan oil sands know all this, and they mostly don’t care.

It’s been three decades since a brand new oil refinery has been built in the United States due to regulatory restrictions, the power of NIMBY-inspired litigation, and already low margins for the refinery business. New domestic capacity has been added to existing refineries through upgrades and expansions, but it’s more common for companies to build new refineries outside the United States.

The brightest prospect for a new refinery has been in South Dakota, where the Dallas-based Hyperion Energy Company plans to build a $10 billion facility in Union County between Sioux Falls, S.D., and Sioux City, Iowa. That’s a lot of investment and jobs. As the PrairieBiz magazine reports, “During construction alone, Hyperion would employ approximately 4,500 workers in the four years that it will take to build. At full production, 1,800 full-time jobs would be available at the plant.”

But all for naught if Congress enacts a low-carbon fuels standard. As we wrote earlier in the week, supporters of the standard claim an environmental imperative, but the proposal would make the U.S. even more dependent on Middle Eastern or Venezuelan oil. And as for the Hyperion project (earlier posts here), the Sioux City Journal reports, “Industry group: Low carbon proposal threatens Hyperion refinery“:

New environmental regulations for transportation fuels being considered in Congress would deal a “devastating” blow to U.S. projects like the proposed Hyperion Energy Center in Union County, according to a coalition of business groups.

Some majority Democrats back legislation that would lower carbon emissions in U.S. vehicles. The so-called Low-Carbon Fuel Standards, or LCFS, would unfairly penalize heavier, dirtier oil such as the crude from the Alberta, Canadian oil sands that Hyperion plans to process.

Last month, Hyperion secured a state air quality permit for its $10 billion refinery, which would process of 400,000 barrels per day.

“No permit in the world is going to save this project if LCFS is put in place,” said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Consumer Energy Alliance, a 125-member group that includes oil companies, retailers, trucking and transportation groups and business organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The Consumer Energy Alliance (which the NAM is a member of) has launched a new website on the low-carbon standards at SecureOurFuels.com, which includes a blog.

Good site. Good jobs.

One of the many campaigns the environmentalist left has organized to cripple U.S. energy production and consumption is an attack against high-carbon fuels, i.e., fuels that are derived from heavy crude that requires additional refining. In the brave new world we live in, carbon is bad because it contributes to global warming/climate change/doom.

In simpler terms: The American greens hate the success of Canada’s oil sands and they want to prevent any similar development in the United States, including shale oil.

In California, the political means being applied is a low-carbon fuel standard dictated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and now being put into effect by the California Air Resource Board. (Details here.)

Legislation has also been introduced in Congress to disadvantage Canadian oil, H.R. 1787, the Low Carbon Fuel Standard Act, and S. 1095, America’s Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

Just as some environmentalists seek to artificially limit U.S. access to Canadian (and Mexican and domestic oil, as the case may be), the Chinese are getting into the business.

From Don Martin, a columnist with The National Post, the nationwide Canadian newspaper, “China dives into oil sands as U. S. balks“:

To lift a quip from Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s Arctic sovereignty policy and apply it to the American view of Alberta’s oil sands: Use it or lose it.

The Chinese government pushed its shovel deep into Canada’s energy motherlode yesterday when it announced a $2-billion stake in a five-billion-barrel reserve of “dirty oil” that Americans increasingly find unworthy of fuelling their vehicles.

The 60% claim by Petro-China in two projects owned by Athabasca Oil Sands Corp., while small compared to the great gobs of capital pouring into oil sands expansion and extraction, are the global giant’s largest investment in Canadian energy yet.

And China usually buys into products it aims to consume.

Investor’s Business Daily comments editorially in “Shifting Sands,” noting, “We balk at importing ‘dirty’ oil from Canada, but others aren’t so reluctant. Exempt as a ‘developing’ nation from Kyoto-like agreements, China has decided to help Canada develop its energy-rich oil sands.” The Canadians, IBD reports, are already talking about a pipeline to bring Alberta oil to the West Coast so it can shipped via tanker to China.

It’s the producers’ oil to sell as they see fit, but it would be a policy mistake of the highest order for the United States to turn its back on its No. 1 oil supplier, a reliable supplier and solid U.S. ally, motivated only by dreams of a new “green” economy that bears little connection to reality. And if U.S. policymakers refuse Canadian oil sands, then they will logically have to refuse any future domestic energy from any U.S. shale or oil sand deposits.

To promote low-carbon fuel mandates is to reject U.S. energy security, plain and simple.

It’s tempting to add this news to the ever-lengthening list of California’s self-destructive actions, but the unfortunate reality is that litigation to slow and stop energy-related projects is a national phenomenon.

From Chevron, a news release, “Chevron Stops Construction of Richmond Refinery Renewal Project –
More than 1,000 workers lose jobs with project that improves air quality”:

RICHMOND, Calif., July 13, 2009 –Chevron’s Richmond Refinery management today
announced that it has stopped all work on a refinery upgrade and modernization project that would have replaced old equipment with newer, cleaner technology.

More than one thousand construction workers are without jobs as a result of the stoppage which was ordered by the Contra Costa County Superior Court on July 1, 2009. The decision was made in response to a request for a work stoppage order by Communities for a Better Environment, the West County Toxics Coalition and the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.

“While Chevron disagrees with the Court’s decision, we are complying with Court’s order made
at the plaintiffs’ request and have stopped all work on the project,” said refinery manager Mike Coyle.

“More than one thousand people are now out of work. By mid-week, 100 construction workers will remain for the period of time necessary to complete the safe demobilization of the Renewal Project.”

The environmental groups are, of course, thrilled with their victory. From the various groups, a release posted at Communities for a Better Environment, “Community and Public Health Advocates Halt Chevron
Refinery Expansion at Richmond, CA“:

“Today is a great victory for the people of Richmond. We stand with the workers, who, through no fault of their own, began working on a project that was not legal,” said Greg Karras of Communities for a Better Environment.

We stand with the workers — on the unemployment line.

P.S.  Although Chevron says it plans to refine light and intermediate crude at the expanded refinery, not heavy crude, the environmentalists have campaigned against the Richmond refinery project as part of their broad attack against “high-carbon” fuels.  One of the goals of these anti-energy groups in demonizing this form of crude is to shut down the Alberta oil sands and prevent any development of shale oil or tar sands in the United States.

Seems like the big economic news in Canada was happening in Atlanta yesterday. Or at least being reported from there (see posts below here and here).

From the Globe and Mail:  

CALGARY AND OTTAWA — Three groups have quit a government-sponsored forum for assessing environmental costs in the oil sands, a move that undercuts government efforts to burnish the image of the massive developments in U.S. markets.

The latest flare-up between the Alberta government and environmental activists came as federal Industry Minister Jim Prentice sought to reassure an international audience that the oil sands are being developed in a responsible way and are critical to U.S. energy security.

“Developing our oil sands has had its environmental challenges, but we’ve come a long way,” he told an Americas Competitiveness Forum.

The story notes that anti-energy environmentalists in Canada have gained support in the U.S. Congress for their campaign against the oil sands. (See this story about the ban on U.S. government purchases of the oil.)

In Atlanta, Industry Minister Jim Prentice reminded the U.S. attendees of the Americas Competitiveness Forum that Canada has been the No. 1 energy exporter to the United States since 1999 and claims 14 percent of the world’s oil reserves. (Ottawa Citizen story.)

From The Calgary Sun:

In what is billed a congressional investigative trip, two U.S. lawmakers will get a bird’s-eye view of Alberta’s oilsands today, a region which has lately been denigrated by mayors south of the border as well as Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s campaign.

But despite the recent spate of criticism, the two Democratic congressmen told the Sun crude from Alberta’s oilsands is vital to the energy security of their country.

“It’s critically important,” said Rick Boucher, a congressmen from Virginia who also chairs the subcommittee on energy and air quality. “We need that oil and we’re going to take whatever steps are necessary to make cure that we continue to have access to it.”

Boucher and Florida congressman Tim Mahoney were in Saskatchewan yesterday to visit the Weyburn carbon dioxide sequestration project. Today, they are touring the Alberta oilsands and meeting industry representatives in Calgary.

Congratulations to Reps. Boucher and Mahoney for their investigations, which show an appreciation of Canada’s role in addressing U.S. energy needs. Many Canadian officials and commentators were offended by the recent know-nothing, no-nothing resolution adopted by the U.S. Conference of Mayors condemning the use of “high-carbon” fuels such as the heavy oil from Canada.

Fortunately, Western governors are less reflexively anti-energy. From The Edmonton Journal, “Governors Cheer Oilsands.”

JACKSON HOLE, Wyoming – Alberta found some allies Sunday at a meeting of governors of western U.S. states, when a pair of lawmakers

defended the oilsands and suggested Canada continue to ramp up its output in the face of environmental concerns.

“I look forward to the day that we markedly increase the oilsands production,” said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat. “We have an energy crisis in this county and maybe the only reliable trading partner that we have in this country is my neighbours, my friends in Alberta.”

Boucher, Mahoney, Schweitzer — all Democrats. Very good to see the pro-energy caucus taking an active role in shaping policy.