wondering about PetroChina in Canada. . .

Am very concerned about Petro China's bid to take over $1.9 billion interest in the Alberta tar sands and I am going to outline some of the reasons below.

First, here is the email I wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the response I today received back from his office - this email outlines my major concern.

Subject : PetroChina & oil sands

Email from Mary Mac to Prime Minister Stephen Harper: I have heard of PetroChina's intentions to purchase major interests in the Alberta oil sands. I also understand the federal government is in a position to review this pending deal. I am writing to urge you to look SERIOUSLY at this proposed purchase. As I understand it, PetroChina has a less-than-positive role (to say the least) in such nations as the Sudan.They have been implicated in serious human rights violations. I am concerned about the future legacy for Canada if such companies are allowed to come in and take such major interests over Canadian resources. Please, consider this issue very carefully & do what you can to safeguard Canada for future generations. Sincerely, Mary Mac in Prince George, British Columbia

Response Email received today from Prime Minister Stephen Harper's office: Dear Ms. Mac: On behalf of the Right Honourable Stephen Harper, I would like to thank you for your e-mail regarding foreign investment in the oil sands. You may be assured that your comments have been given careful consideration. As they will also be of interest to the Honourable Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources, and the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, I have taken the liberty of forwarding copies of your message to them. I am certain that the Ministers will give your views every consideration. Thank you for taking the time to share your views with the Prime Minister on this important issue. P. MonteithExecutive Correspondence Officerfor the Prime Minister's OfficeAgent de correspondancede la haute directionpour le Cabinet du Premier ministre from

On this same issue of PetroChina's plans to hugely move into the tar sands, below is an article I took from http://www.tarsandswatch.org/ which outlines the issues of concern with the major PetroChina bid over the tar sands (aka oil sands). I am bold-fonting the issues that are directly relevant to Prince George & area and plans to punch Enbridge oil pipeline through here . . .

China's oil sands pushPosted: October 2, 2009 Section: Global Warming

Derek Brower, October 2009, Petroleum Economist--PetroChina has staked China's claim to Canada's oil sands, providing local developers with an export alternative to the US market, writes Derek Brower.
"THREAT to the new energy economy," reads the strapline on literature from the Dirty Oil Network, a coalition of environmental groups opposed to Canada's oil sands and the US' use of them.
China does not agree. At the end of August, one of its state-controlled companies, PetroChina, bought a 60% stake in two new oil-sands projects, paying Athabasca Oil Sands (AOSC) C$1.9bn ($1.7bn) for control of the MacKay River and Dover developments.
The two AOSC properties could eventually produce around 0.5m barrels a day (b/d), based on 5bn barrels of reserves. AOSC has not set a schedule for development of the oil. Previously, the company was planning to export its bitumen to refineries in the US Midwest, where demand for Canadian heavy crude is expected to reach 2m b/d by 2015. The company says it would consider other export routes, too.
Provided the Canadian and Alberta governments approve the deal, the destination of the crude will be PetroChina's decision. Crucially, the Chinese company has backed a new pipeline to the west coast of Canada, which would open up a route for exports to its home market. Enbridge, the company that hopes to develop that 0.525m b/d line, could start building it next year. PetroChina has an agreement with Enbridge to take up to 50% of the capacity.
The AOSC deal makes sense for China, whose oil-sands presence had been notable for its restraint, especially in the recent boom years while other companies were rushing to invest. PetroChina's stake in AOSC will dwarf the positions held in the oil sands by two other Chinese state-controlled firms. CNOOC has a minority holding in a smaller project and Sinopec bought 10% of Total's Northern Lights development earlier this year.
Li Ka-Shing, a Chinese businessman, also owns a majority stake in Husky Energy, another oil-sands player. But Husky, which also has a downstream presence in Canada, is still considered a local firm.
It could also herald another round of acquisitions from China's state-owned energy companies. Last month, China National Petroleum Corporation, PetroChina's parent company, received a five-year discounted loan from the China Development Bank to help it buy more upstream assets overseas.
That might include another offer for YPF, the Argentine unit of Spain's Repsol, or part of it. CNPC failed to buy control of the company after offering almost $15bn for it earlier in the summer. It could also lead to further acquisitions in Alberta.
Strategic rewards
Strategically, the PetroChina deal looks rewarding for China and Canada. The US has long enjoyed a monopoly on Canadian oil exports and its control over the oil sands has annoyed many developers. Opening up a new export route to Asia – assuming this results from the PetroChina deal – would be welcome to some in the sector. Tom Katinas, chief executive of Syncrude, one of the largest oil-sands developers, told a conference last month that he would "love" to see infrastructure to the west coast brought on stream, "to be able to export some of the Alberta oil".
Others in Alberta are less sure. An editorial in the Calgary Herald, a staunch supporter of the oil sands, called on the federal government to block the deal. Citing China's human-rights record, its totalitarian regime and its aggressive pursuit of assets elsewhere, the newspaper suggested that if Canada accepted the deal, it would be hard-pressed to justify blocking any bigger purchases later.
Yet, so far, the indications are that the federal government will not interfere. Prime minister Stephen Harper said the government would "apply the law that's in place". That includes a review of any foreign acquisition of Canadian assets worth more than C$312m. He added, however, that his government had been "very clear that in the middle of a global recession we will not be introducing further barriers to foreign investment".
The Alberta government, a long-standing adherent to the principles of laissez-faire economics, is also inclined to accept PetroChina's acquisition. Its premier, Ed Stelmach, claimed it "shows that we are going to be game-changers in oil resources around the world". If PetroChina's bid triggers more Chinese interest, this would also inject momentum into the oil sands. Since the collapse in crude prices last year, about $100bn worth of projects have been shelved or scrapped.
The US, meanwhile, has watched the deal's progress with a degree of alarm, to judge by some comments from Congress. Yet for Canada, PetroChina's interests could not have come at a better time. New proposals in Congress aimed at curbing greenhouse-gas emissions have worried Canadian oil producers. Last month, Harper met President Barack Obama and reiterated his opposition to some of the new legislation, saying a plan to erect tariffs against countries that did not reduce emissions would "become a front for protectionism quicker than you can say 'hello'".
Meanwhile, environmental groups such as the Dirty Oil Network (which lists Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and various other pressure groups as members) are hoping to reverse a decision by the State Department to allow construction of a new pipeline to supply bitumen from the oil sands to the Midwest. Enbridge's C$1.2bn Clipper project would export 450,000 b/d to Wisconsin and be on stream by 2010. In August, the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, approved the project despite the vociferous campaign against it.
Alberta's executives resent the sway they believe such campaigners now hold in the US, and consider that the Obama administration is much less enthusiastic about the oil sands than was the Bush White House. Samuel Bodman, the Republican energy secretary under George Bush, was a frequent visitor to the oil sands, emphasising their strategic importance to the US. Since then, several US states have begun legislating against Canada's "dirty oil", despite a recent study showing that fuel produced from the oil sands is scarcely more carbon-intensive than fuel from other crudes.
In Alberta, the Enbridge decision was welcomed as a signal that the US has not forgotten its long-standing ally. But China's entry into the oil sands will remind the US that Canada has options. Even if PetroChina's investment remains financial – and none of AOSC's bitumen ever ends up in Asia – China will now control some of the Canadian crude refined in the Midwest's refineries.
That could be galling for the US, which resisted CNOOC's bid to buy Unocal in 2005 because it would be against the country's strategic interests. A controversial provision in the North American Free Trade Agreement guarantees the US a proportion of Canadian oil exports. But if PetroChina's arrival heralds sustained Chinese interest in the oil sands, the US might remember the value of Alberta's "dirty oil".

*******

On the international scene - particularly Africa - Petro China has a deplorable human rights record to date. . .

From http://sudanwatch.blogspot.com

Last month, PetroChina's parent China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) was awarded $260 million of engineering and construction contracts for an area known as Block 6, China’s largest oil and gas producer said on its website today.The contracts in Sudan include the expansion of a power plant and construction of two crude oil tanks with a capacity of 50,000 cubic meters each, CNPC said.Sudan had 5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves as of January, the fifth-biggest in Africa, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The majority of the reserves are located in the Muglad and Melut basins in the south. China is the country’s largest investor.China’s oil consumption doubled in the last decade to 8 million barrels a day in 2008, according to BP Plc’s Statistical Review. It imported about 3.6 million barrels of oil a day last year, meeting about 45 percent of its needs.Source: Report by Bloomberg News, Friday, October 9, 2009. Copy:PetroChina Parent Wins Engineering Contracts in Sudan (Update2)
China National Petroleum Corp. said it beat 13 bidders from countries including India to win seven engineering contracts in Sudan, holder of Africa’s fifth-largest crude oil reserves.A unit of China National Petroleum was awarded $260 million of engineering and construction contracts for an area known as Block 6 in September, China’s largest oil and gas producer said on its Web site today.China National Petroleum, the parent of Hong Kong-listed PetroChina Co., said last month it had received a $30 billion loan to fund overseas expansion as the world’s third-largest economy stepped up its hunt for energy resources overseas. China National Petroleum led the development of the first oilfield in Sudan where President Umar al-Bashir is accused by the International Criminal Court of committing war crimes in Darfur.“Given the good bilateral ties between China and Africa, Chinese companies have the advantage with infrastructure engineering contracts,” Wang Jing, chief oil analyst with Orient Securities Ltd., said by telephone in Shanghai.The contracts in Sudan include the expansion of a power plant and construction of two crude oil tanks with a capacity of 50,000 cubic meters each, China National Petroleum said.Sudan had 5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves as of January, the fifth-biggest in Africa, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The majority of the reserves are located in the Muglad and Melut basins in the south. China is the country’s largest investor in Darfur, In western region of Darfur, clashes between pro-government forces and rebels, along with tribal fighting, banditry and disease, have killed about 300,000 people, according to United Nations estimates. The rebels took up arms against the government in 2003 accusing it of neglecting the area. The government puts the death toll at about 10,000.China’s oil consumption doubled in the last decade to 8 million barrels a day in 2008, according to BP Plc’s Statistical Review. It imported about 3.6 million barrels of oil a day last year, meeting about 45 percent of its needs.To contact the reporter on this story: Ying Wang in Beijing at ywang30@bloomberg.net

And from http://stanford.wellsphere.com

Petrochina Blasted for Indirectly Supporting Human Rights Violations
Posted Jan 11 2009 3:38pm
Over 80 civil society organizations from 25 countries, along with government officials and activist actress Mia Farrow, have filed a complaint with the United Nations charging PetroChina, the publicly traded arm of China National Petroleum Company (CNPC), with indirectly supporting the Sudan regime that is responsible for the human rights crisis in Darfur. The complainants, who are coordinated by Investors Against Genocide (IAG) in collaboration with the Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO), are issuing a double-barreled challenge. They're calling out PetroChina for not using its power and influence to persuade the Khartoum government to abandon its oft-demonstrated indifference to human rights, and they're also tasking the United Nations with enforcing the language in its Global Compact, which PetroChina has signed. With over 500 signatories, the Global Compact is the world's largest and best-known voluntary corporate social responsibility initiative. Its first principle states that businesses should support and respect the protection of internationally proclaimed human rights, while its second principle requires that businesses ensure they are not complicit in human rights abuses. The complaint charges PetroChina with violating both these principles. If a Global Compact signatory behaves in ways that are inconsistent with its commitment, the UN has an affirmative duty to de-list the organization. This is what the IAG coalition is asking the organization to do. Says IAG Chairperson Eric Cohen, If a company seeks legitimacy by joining the Global Compact, it should be required to have a genuine commitment. If the Compact's principles aren't enforced, the UN risks making the Global Compact an international joke. These are two mighty big meals that the IAG consortium is trying to digest. For all practical purposes, PetroChina is an arm of the Chinese government, and we all know how receptive that regime has been to chastisement by the international community. As for the UN, since its earliest days it's been characterized by the gaping chasm between its aspirations and its actions. To date this pattern has applied to the Global Compact as well: the UN has never de-listed an organization for substantive (as distinguished from procedural) reasons. In one fell swoop, the IAG group is asking the Chinese government, as fronted by PetroChina, to change its evil ways, and the UN to grow some teeth. IAG's Eric Cohen is cautiously optimistic about the chances for success. We're not asking PetroChina to threaten to withdraw from Sudan if the oil companies' demands aren't met, he says. We're only asking them to step up to their responsibility to be an ethically good business partner. As for the likelihood of getting the UN to enforce its integrity measures, I believe we can get the people in charge of the Global Compact to help the program actually be the agent for change it aspires to be, Cohen says. The world is on the move. Maybe it's ready for the changes we want to see.