# KMI - Kinder Morgan



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Hi All,

Thoughts on buying Kinder Morgan as a value play?
https://www.kindermorgan.com/

Solid history of increasing dividends until the oil crisis - then things got slashed (rightly so):
http://ir.kindermorgan.com/dividend-history

Thinking about buying more given just above 52-week low.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

With those protestors mobilizing against TMX..I wouldnt touch this. JMO


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I wouldn't touch it either, although the US stock will be impacted less by a collapse of the TM expansion than will Kinder Morgan (KML) stock in Canada. I recall reading somewhere that the Canadian stock at $15 would represent only fair value of ongoing operations and any price below that would be a bargain.

I am only giving the TM Expansion a 50/50 chance of happening. It depends on how long the parent company is willing to allow cash bleed of the project team before it seeks better fortunes elsewhere. 

I'd suggest no later than Fall of 2018 for a Spring 2019 construction start, notwithstanding certain construction works are ongoing in Burnaby - the test site for getting underway. The KM team is trying and if they can get terminal works and Burnaby Mountain construction underway, they will have won the battle.

What I have not seen discussed, and I am not watching closely, is if the Canadian gov't might give KM project loan guarantees for a good portion of funds spent, i.e. if the TM expansion gets stalled, can KM recover a portion of the expansion costs from the Canadian taxpayer. That would demonstrate Ottawa commitment to the expansion (not a good thing for taxpayers, but a test of the size of JT's balls).


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> That would demonstrate Ottawa commitment to the expansion (not a good thing for taxpayers, but a test of the size of JT's balls).


I would definitely consider this to be a high risk flyer!


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I don't know as much about KMI about their operations or financials as Canadian pipelines. ENB probably offers a similar risk profile and also similarly just above its 52 week low and would be my #1 pick for a value pipeline. If you already own a bunch of pipelines then you might be going overweight this one sector.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

Fair points all. Maybe I'll wait on this one. I own a number of pipelines now...I guess I just see ENB, KMI, PPL and IPL as buying opportunities now.

I have some KMI but more in my RRSP would look good at this price.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Kinder Morgan has just put the Trans Mountain expansion on hold until Canada's governments figure out who the hell is driving the ship:
https://ir.kindermorgancanadalimited.com/2018-04-08-Kinder-Morgan-Canada-Limited-Suspends-Non-Essential-Spending-on-Trans-Mountain-Expansion-Project, and: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/kinder-morgan-puts-brakes-on-trans-mountain-pipeline-activities-1.4610626

Premier Notley has just held a news conference announcing that the Alberta government is prepared to take a stake in the pipeline (extent & nature of this is very vague at this point) and BC would find them a 'determined shareholder'. Alberta is also proceeding with legislation that will provide the tools Alberta needs to impose punitive economic sanctions against BC. 
Begins at 14:48 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNVq7eC9jWc

This is expansion is not going to just go away if KM decides to cancel its plans.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Doesn't surprise me that AB will now support with money. The payoff will be terrific with a boost to the AB economy, taxes and royalties and whatever financial stake AB takes, will be easily saleable once it is operational. Now it is time to see what Ottawa is made of - money where their mouth is.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

This is worth a lot more to Alberta than Kinder Morgan. This is ripping the two provinces apart like nothing we've seen in decades. I believe this will get worse before it gets better.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Most likely, but AB is not going to cave when so much GDP and royalty revenue is ultimately at stake. They might do what they can to punish BC including, if necessary, shutting off oil to the Burnaby (Parkland Fuels?) refinery (which is small anyway). The Lower Mainland will have to import all of their gasoline for awhile and/or pay a 'higher taxed' price from Edmonton based refineries. AB might even shut down any oil and gas production that comes out of NEBC although that hurts the oil companies virtually all which are based in AB. It could get very nasty but could also play into a re-election for Notley.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> ... It could get very nasty but could also play into a re-election for Notley.




i believe someone made this point, that rachel notley sticks to a hard line because she needs votes from the right

i am not getting why it would be helpful for alberta to buy shares in kinder morgan. Its directors do not need this kind of support, they appear to be acting in unison & it's in unison that they have legitimately sought, for the longest time, to expand their operations in BC & AB. Surely alberta does not have capital to throw away on risky investments.

nor am i getting why the same people who dump on justin trudeau are now looking to trudeau to solve the problem instead of to the real obstacle, which is the current gummint of BC. It's a lawfully elected gummint & it has to be dealt with. 

the environmental concerns of a significant number of british columbians still have to be dealt with. The situation is not black-&-white.. Diehard bedrock opponents of any pipeline/maritime operation appear to be few in number. Some voters in the middle can likely be won over, particularly if their environmental concerns are carefully listened to & additional safeguards are put in place where indicated. It's reported that even within the BC NDP party itself, urban unionized workers who form roughy half the membership, support the transMountain because they understand the economic benefits

trudeau is never going to impose martial law on canada's westernmost province imho. I believe he'll continue as he's begun; he'll seek to win over opposition by negotiation & persuasion.


.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Good points Humble.

I tend to think Notely is motivated by the bottom line rather than politics (although they align). I don't think the average Canadian realizes the billions of dollars that land-locked oil pricing is costing Canada. Multiple attempts to access world markets have stalled. Aside from price, the antics south of the border these days demonstrate how risky it is having the US as your 'only' customer.

While the power of government to expropriate is an imperfect analogy, the Federal government does have jurisdiction here over the expansion. As Notly said yesterday, BC certainly has the power/right to ensure the expansion and operations are done safely and within environmental requirements - they do not have the authority to stop the expansion. The NDP in BC are throwing up roadblocks to appease the Greens and cling to power.

Trudeau appears to be doing nothing but talking (I wish I believed there were serious discusssions going on behind closed doors). Continued 'negotiation' and presuasion will just not work. And they are not required - the Feds have jurisdiction. I believe he is 'secretly' hoping it will be cancelled by KM and go away so that liberal seats in GVA are not at risk. I think Notley is trying to force him to use his balls instead of his mouth - and I hope she succeeds.

I don't think Alberta would be a simple shareholder of KM, but a partner (full owner?) of the pipeline (or its expanded capacity?). It is a 'utility', no different than any number of provincially-owned utilities across the country. There must be some additional clout seen in that regard - BC opposing expansion of a provincially-owned utility that operates under Federal rules? As AltaRed has pointed out, as a utility it is a fairly secure investment and is saleable in the future.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Lower mainlanders forget dozens of tankers ply the Juan de Fuca strait every day with, at one time, 2 million barrels of oil per day of crude oil bound for Puget Sound refineries. Alaska oil has plied the BC Coast and Juan de Fuca since the '70s with oil for Puget Sound refineries. The Lower Mainland gets much of its gasoline from Puget Sound refineries. Lower mainlanders know not (or are in denial) about what has transpired for decades. The KM expansion would not result in a material increase in the number of tankers plying Juan de Fuca strait.

Bottom line: Lower mainlanders are classic hypocrites, either maliciously or dreadfully ignorant.

Added: It is very easy for both Alberta and the Feds to take equity interests in the KM expansion. Assign new crown corps to form a JV with KM. When the pipeline is done, sell those crown corps to pipeline owners, including a FROR potentially to KM. I have been involved in numerous JV type of arrangements for much of my career. They can work very well with hundreds of precedents both in Canada and worldwide.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It is very easy for both Alberta and the Feds to take equity interests in the KM expansion. Assign new crown corps to form a JV with KM. When the pipeline is done, sell those crown corps to pipeline owners, including a FROR potentially to KM. I have been involved in numerous JV type of arrangements for much of my career. They can work very well with hundreds of precedents both in Canada and worldwide.




but what is the benefit of the above, to the eyes of the directors in faraway texas? they don't need the financial support, why would they want to be tied down to a rigamarole.

if i were a kinder morgan big nob, i'd be extremely leery about getting involved with a single dollar of canadian (fill in the correct word: bribe/unpopular crown corporation/joint venture) right now. Such action would impair KMI's ability to leave town, if the situation comes to that.

some might view equity interests held by alberta and/or ottawa as elaborate gussied-up ways of saying Give Us More Time! to kinder morgan. They are ways of saying Please Don't Go Away, We Promise We'll Get the A-OK.


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The KM Board sees $7B (and escalating) costs as too risky for their balance sheet with no light at the end of the tunnel. However, if they dilute to say, 40% and with say, a 30% interest each by AB and Ottawa, everyone is aligned in protecting their bottom line and getting things done, rather than just arm waving rhetoric. Once the political and schedule risk has been diminished, then it becomes palatable again to be an owner, and KM would likely step right up to buy out gov't interests. It's been done a number of times on large scale national and trans-national projects. It really can be a win-win.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The KM Board sees $7B (and escalating) costs as too risky for their balance sheet with no light at the end of the tunnel. However, if they dilute to say, 40% and with say, a 30% interest each by AB and Ottawa, everyone is aligned in protecting their bottom line and getting things done, rather than just arm waving rhetoric. Once the political and schedule risk has been diminished, then it becomes palatable again to be an owner, and KM would likely step right up to buy out gov't interests. It's been done a number of times on large scale national and trans-national projects. It really can be a win-win.



(aside to onlyMO) see how well negotiation & persuasion work? altaRed has got my rapt attention! 

not saying i'm convinced but this idea should definitely see the public light of day

would there be any chance of enlightened private parties in BC - private, not the gummint - taking an interest chunk as well. Some of those first nations along the pipeline route who have signed on with approval of the KMI expansion, for example.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Maybe a few but I believe (WAG) they are far and few between compared to First Nations who want to build the Eagle Spirit pipeline and don't want KM to be the competition. The fact they don't have the wherewithal to do it is immaterial. The (federal) Spirit will provide.

https://www.behance.net/gallery/19947719/EAGLE-SPIRIT-PIPELINE-PROSPECTS-SOARING


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> Bottom line: Lower mainlanders are classic hypocrites, either maliciously or dreadfully ignorant.


I vote for dreadfully uninformed. And this seems to be reinforced by the mainstream media.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> Maybe a few but I believe (WAG) they are far and few between compared to First Nations who want to build the Eagle Spirit pipeline and don't want KM to be the competition. The fact they don't have the wherewithal to do it is immaterial. The (federal) Spirit will provide.


No oil or pipeline company will ever align with a first nations project. They will leave town before that happens.

The MSM doesnt report this, but many bands protesting the last few days have already approved the KM pipeline and took monies from the company only to turncoat on the whole operation and get bought off by the environmental lobby to oppose it now. Their reputation is shot and they own it.

What is most likely to happen is the burnaby port is abandoned and they run the pipe into the US some hundred kms back and feed Washington State refiners. It means the US is the customer again but better than no pipeline at all.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Maybe a few but I believe (WAG) they are far and few between compared to First Nations who want to build the Eagle Spirit pipeline and don't want KM to be the competition. The fact they don't have the wherewithal to do it is immaterial. The (federal) Spirit will provide.
> https://www.behance.net/gallery/19947719/EAGLE-SPIRIT-PIPELINE-PROSPECTS-SOARING



? the link you've provided for the Eagle Spirit project is 2014, it's four years out of date. It's irrelevant right now, the eagle spirit project appears to be dead-in-the-water.

i am not sure how many first nations along the KMI route are strongly-positive to positive; but obviously there is accord because otherwise the transMountain would be blocked at the land level. Which it isn't.

current opposition is related to shipping issues. There was a demonstration last saturday at the kinder morgan burnaby terminal. The demonstrators were focused strictly on water quality & on the 7 big aframax tankers that will sail vancouver harbour & the straits of georgia & juan de fuca every single day ... for the next half century. 

by contrast, evidently the present KMI operation involves one ship sailing from burnaby every other day,. Three or four oil tankers a week right now, as opposed to 21 tankers a week post-expansion.




AltaRed said:


> Lower mainlanders forget dozens of tankers ply the Juan de Fuca strait every day with, at one time, 2 million barrels of oil per day of crude oil bound for Puget Sound refineries. Alaska oil has plied the BC Coast and Juan de Fuca since the '70s with oil for Puget Sound refineries. The Lower Mainland gets much of its gasoline from Puget Sound refineries. Lower mainlanders know not (or are in denial) about what has transpired for decades. The KM expansion would not result in a material increase in the number of tankers plying Juan de Fuca strait.
> 
> Bottom line: Lower mainlanders are classic hypocrites, either maliciously or dreadfully ignorant.




the folks i saw in the saturday videos looked neither classically hypocritical nor malicious nor dreadfully ignorant. On the contrary, they looked like people who could be one's neighbours. Nice people with serious concerns that should be addressed, not ridiculed.

let's remember that the previous BC gummint - less than a year ago - approved the entire kinder morgan operation. The current BC gummint only sits because of a perilously fragile link to 2-3 green party representatives. 

it wouldn't take much to swing majority thinking in BC back in favour of transMountain. In the meantime, let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

i for one disagree with people who say there's no time for discussion or negotiation, therefore trudeau should impose a federal edict akin to the war measures act. All such a divisive action would do IMHO is open the door to a half-century of sabotage & possibly violent resistance.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

So I picked an old link. It is still alive (if one can call 'head in the clouds' alive) http://business.financialpost.com/c...il-tanker-ban-an-old-gold-rush-town-in-alaska No one is going to fund $16-17 billion.

The pipeline expansion is 590,000 barrels per day (increase) and VLCC tankers are circa 1 million barrels per day. ULCCs are even larger. That is approximately one tanker per day, or 2 if smaller tankers are used. There is a lot of hyperbole going on about the increase in tanker traffic in Juan de Fuca Strait.

The protesters are being fed misinformation from vested interests as it always does, usually some US funded organizations are involved. They really are not getting the facts and they really don't want to know the facts. I personally know a number of Lower Mainlanders who are fervently against shipping but have none of the facts and don't care to actually hear them. Their minds are made up and as long as they drive ICEs, I feel free to call them hypocrites.

I do agree that most FN's along the land route had signed on in return for monetary benefits such as jobs, etc. The real issue is indeed shipping which fundamentally is "mostly" a red herring.

There was a lot of consternation regarding the Grand Banks when Hibernia started up in 1999. Since then there have been other oil fields developed. The tankers have been moving crude safely in iceberg infested waters for all those years in a highly sensitive commercial fisheries zone without consequences at all. Much ado about nothing.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Dont look to Trudeau to do anything but sit on the sidelines and watch two provinces go at it. Here is what he really wants from his own advisor;


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

So you're thinking KMI will permanently pack their bags and leave?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> So you're thinking KMI will permanently pack their bags and leave?


KM will likely always remain to operate the existing pipeline and they will want to be around to build and operate the expansion. Right now it is all about the political and legal uncertainties and no Board should be spending heavily on something that tenuous. So if the political and legal risk can be taken by gov't entities, and get through that, I think KM would be happy to remain, even if at reduced ownership. Time will tell. If it is not underway by mid-summer, another construction season is lost.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...raps-meech-lake-oka-and-flq-into-one-complex/



> The prime minister told reporters he had given that message, yet again, to B.C. Premier John Horgan. “I impressed upon him the importance of working together and respecting the federal responsibility for protecting things that are in the national interest,” Mr. Trudeau said. “This is a pipeline in the national interest and it will get built.”
> 
> 
> Except that the federal government has little ability to back up that statement. In which case, the Liberals are staring at a political and policy failure of epic proportions.
> ...


this is the real problem, big-hair can "impress upon john horgan" all he wants but he has signalled his weakness and empty hand loud and clear

kinder-morgan is an unavoidable symptom of a country that has been identity-politiced to death ... trudeau has enshrined the lunatic notion of "social license" and signified that _gender balance_ actually matters more to him than the canadian economy

you have 10 provinces 3 territories and 600+ native bands across the country all of whom now can speak loud and clear against any and all infrastructure projects that they don't like, not to mention the environmental lobby ...

this country is slowing grinding to an economic standstill and we are slowly but surely starving our resource sector out of existence ...capital is leaving the stock market and our dollar continues to languish despite improving oil prices

the environmental lobby smells blood in the water and this will only get worse under an inept and weak leader

it is time to move investment dollars out of this country


----------



## Chica (Jan 19, 2016)

Build that pipeline east through all the provinces that support it. It'll cost a few more bucks but everyone will be happy. Go east young man, not west.


----------



## lightcycle (Mar 24, 2012)

Chica said:


> Build that pipeline east through all the provinces that support it. It'll cost a few more bucks but everyone will be happy. Go east young man, not west.


That's a *reeeeally* long way to get all that oil to China...


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

That oil is desperately needed along with a refinery in BC. I don't think we should ship any of it overseas when we need it right here. Of course the environmentalists will suggest we don't need oil and all we need is renewable energy and all that hogwash. The price of gas in Vancouver is already out of control and the people need to be told the truth about energy.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

The earth is not yet in a place that we can disconnect from fossil fuels. Political hot potato aside, the fuel is going to be burned. From an environmental standpoint, the less fuel burned the better and that will mean the pipeline. 25 years from now, I hope, it will be a different story.

We need the pipeline.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

TomB19 said:


> We need the pipeline.


You are going to have to arrest and detain thousands of people to get this done. I dont see how. 

The experts are already saying this is the last pipeline that will ever be built in canada. We have some big problems, confederation wise that are going to come out of this.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

tygrus said:


> You are going to have to arrest and detain thousands of people to get this done. I dont see how.


Good point. Most of the focus seems to be on the BC government, but they're not even the largest obstacle.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

new dog said:


> That oil is desperately needed along with a refinery in BC. I don't think we should ship any of it overseas when we need it right here. Of course the environmentalists will suggest we don't need oil and all we need is renewable energy and all that hogwash. The price of gas in Vancouver is already out of control and the people need to be told the truth about energy.


Yeah, ain't gonna happen though. However, they can send gas through the pipeline.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The pipeline expansion is 590,000 barrels per day (increase) and VLCC tankers are circa 1 million barrels per day. ULCCs are even larger. That is approximately one tanker per day, or 2 if smaller tankers are used. There is a lot of hyperbole going on about the increase in tanker traffic in Juan de Fuca Strait.
> 
> The protesters are being fed misinformation from vested interests as it always does, usually some US funded organizations are involved. They really are not getting the facts and they really don't want to know the facts.





alas VLCC are far too big to navigate constraints such as the low bridges within burnaby/vancouver harbour or the narrow dangerous channel at Turn point entering Haro strait just before juan de fuca. 

the vessels kinder morgan is obliged to use are aframax tankers. At 80,000 to 120,000 tonnes, these are one-tenth the size of a VLCC. 

interestingly, using altaRed's own statistic of 590,000 barrels per day, this works out to at least 7 westbound aframax tankers per day plus another 7 empty tankers on the eastbound return journey. Exactly as has been cited. 

parties speaking of 7 additional aframax tankers required per day are correct. They are not spreading US propaganda. I am not spreading US propaganda.


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The official number of tankers being talked about for the KM expansion is 31 per month (KM itself says up to 34). A VLCC that traverses our oceans starts at 250,000 DWT, only 2-3 times the size of an aframax, not 10 times.

The average aframax holds 750,000 barrels which is more than the KM expansion capacity of 590,000 barrels per day. That fits right in with about 31 tankers a month.

The real facts are https://www.transmountain.com/marine-plans

Added: I am well aware VLCCs cannot go into Vancouver Harbour. That really wasn't really the point of my post when I talked about a VLCC holding 1 million barrels per day or more... My discussion was about tankers plying the Juan de Fuca. But I can see where I combined two thoughts in that post.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The official number of tankers being talked about for the KM expansion is 31 per month (KM itself says up to 34). A VLCC that traverses our oceans starts at 250,000 DWT, only 2-3 times the size of an aframax, not 10 times.
> 
> The average aframax holds 750,000 barrels which is more than the KM expansion capacity of 590,000 barrels per day. That fits right in with about 31 tankers a month.
> 
> ...




you mentioned strictly 1 million barrel VLCCs which are indeed 10 times the size of an aframax.

navigating the burnaby/vancouver harbour plus navigating race rock & juan de fuca strait are challenging, which is why licensed canadian coastal pilots are taken on board.

at Turn Point ships must make a 90 degree southward turn into haro strait, in a narrow channel that can support the draught of one tanker. Parties who express concern over these navigational issues should be treated with respect, imho.

recently, washington state governor Jay Inslee has joined the BC gummint in opposing the kinder morgan expansion. Looking at the map, i have wondered about that very long passageway between the south coast of vancouver island & the far northwest washington state coastline. This is the final stage as westbound ships make their way out into the open pacific.

possibly the channel is broader & deeper in this final stretch of the juan de fuca strait; however if governor inslee is concerned about oil leakage or tanker breakup along the coast of his state, would keeping canadian pilots on board past the city of Victoria help to allay his fears?

imho all parties need to do what trudeau is doing. Dialogue. Be prepared to make some concessions. The number of votes in victoria that can swing positive permission for the KMI expansion is razor-thin. Sooner or later the province will revert to the liberal approval of the last BC legislature, after all they left office less than a year ago.

meanwhile kinder morgan itself is not leaving BC. Calls for the company to "pack up" are based in ignorance, imho. The company has a legacy enterprise out of burnaby port, something like 50 years already. The company is being very reasonable & diplomatic in saying it needs full permission for its planned expansion by the end of may. 


.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> recently, washington state governor Jay Inslee has joined the BC gummint in opposing the kinder morgan expansion. Looking at the map, i have wondered about that very long passageway between the south coast of vancouver island & the far northwest washington state coastline.


He opposes the pipeline because he wants it to turn south at Sumas, cross the US border and land at refineries in Washington State - Ferndale and Anacortes. He will then buy discounted feed stock from AB, refine it and sell it into greater vancouver and export the rest on tanker. 

In one fell swoop the US gets our export channel to china, discounted crude, a captive customer in vancouver and steals revenue from AB both ways. Project is better off to die if this is the case.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> you mentioned strictly 1 million barrel VLCCs which are indeed 10 times the size of an aframax.


I refuse to argue with someone that doesn't get the math....

Aframax http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/aframax/ 80,000 to 120,000 DWT

VLCC http://maritime-connector.com/wiki/ship-sizes/ 180,000 to 320,000 DWT

My grade school arithmetic says 2-3 times..... Please have a good day.

Added: 1 metric tonne of oil = 6.92 barrels


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

The BC gov't needs to get their act together...what's wrong with them?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

My Own Advisor said:


> The BC gov't needs to get their act together...what's wrong with them?


Same thing that is wrong with the quebec govt and montreal mayorship who killed EE.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> The BC gov't needs to get their act together...what's wrong with them?


horgan needs the greens to continue to govern and the greens, in their fanatical and fairyland view of the world completely oppose kinder morgan, it is an article of faith for the greens ... horgan has no choice but to fight km or he risks a split with the greens

his approval of site c dam has tipped his hand, he desperately wants to pick up up votes in the north and east and i suspect would like to also approve kmp but he cannot


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

My Own Advisor said:


> The BC gov't needs to get their act together...what's wrong with them?



this is an example of the kind of attitude that is adding tinder to the kinder morgan fire, instead of helping.

_"the opposition doesn't agree with me"

"i am 100% perfect, correct & self-righteous, of course"

"therefore they are the ones who must be wrong"
_


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

alas if kinder morgan management has set the end of may as the deadline by which they must know whether to proceed with transMountain construction or not, it does appear that this date will be overshot.

dissension is so profound that it does not seem possible to reach an accord within the next few weeks. This in turn will mean that the prime summertime construction season wll be missed.

the BC gummint is calling for further testing of what happens to water when dilbit leaks.

there are those in cmf forum who will ridicule this step. However there is merit to the effort because history & lab tests so far contradict each other.

what we know is that a massive 2010 alberta dilbit leak in michigan (six feet of enbridge pipe ruptured) sent record amounts of dilbit into the kalamazoo river & all the bitumen sank to the bottom.

in a georgia strait or pacific ocean leak, bitumen that sinks will remain permanently unrecoverable, although it will not be inert on the ocean floor & it will gradually break up into toxic molecules.

on the other hand, reportedly there have been quality lab experiments since the kalamazoo river disaster in which dilbit floated. If indeed the stuff floats, leakage into water can more easily be contained inside booms & vacuumed up from the water surface.

impatient persons may not like it & some will claim that the call for testing is pure political manoeuvering on the part of the BC gummint. However i for one can see the merits of such tests. It's also possible that the dilbit diluant itself could be altered so that the resulting final mixture will float.

of course, there goes another year at least ...

still, it's early days for the liberal cabinet & kinder morgan. As pipeline sagas go, KMI is a mere spring chicken. Patience is key here. Stephen Harper managed to linger through 13 long years of keystone XL while never seeming the worse for it.




> Following the [Kalamazoo river] spill, the volatile hydrocarbon diluents evaporated, leaving the heavier bitumen to sink in the water column.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalamazoo_River_oil_spill



.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Ok I will agree to the testing in return for a suspension of all transfer payments to BC and BC based indian bands including the ocean protection funding in the meantime. Those monies will go to alberta to compensate them for the wait. We also need to relook at BC LNG project approvals again too.

On top of that, we need to test our gasoline supplies to see if they meet XYZ criteria. We need to suspend those as deliveries as well. 

Sorry for the delay. I stress patience with the process.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> this is an example of the kind of attitude that is adding tinder to the kinder morgan fire, instead of helping.
> 
> _"the opposition doesn't agree with me"
> 
> ...


HP, I don't think I ever said I was 100% perfect, correct, self-righteous or otherwise. If you can find those words in this thread then I will retract that - but you won't find anything 

My point is, the BC government should be working in the best interests of this country, first and foremost. I'm not saying they don't need to look after provincial interests but anyone that thinks otherwise has never been on a team.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> horgan needs the greens to continue to govern and the greens, in their fanatical and fairyland view of the world completely oppose kinder morgan, it is an article of faith for the greens ... horgan has no choice but to fight km or he risks a split with the greens
> 
> his approval of site c dam has tipped his hand, he desperately wants to pick up up votes in the north and east and i suspect would like to also approve kmp but he cannot



it's hard to imagine things going to this extent ... but would the above be suggesting that a bigger elected NDP proportion in victoria would mean OFF with the green party stranglehold & ON with approval for the KMI operation, including tanker ship traffic?


.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I am sure people hate the idea, but I will throw it out there. I think that privatizing PetroCan was a big mistake as it could have been a solution to some of these problems.

I always hear the rhetoric about Energy East or other oil sands pipelines providing gas to wean us off Middle East oil, where the reality is, all the oil sands oil would simply be exported as we don't have refineries to process dilbit in Canada on either East or West coast.

We are told that it is non-economical to build these refineries, but that is where a crown corporation could step in and provide this capability for Canada's benefit.

After all, I am sure you could better buy in if a local refinery were built, providing local jobs and cheaper gas, than the current situation where your land is being used as transit, and you are on the hook for spill cleanup.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> it's hard to imagine things going to this extent ... but would the above be suggesting that a bigger elected NDP proportion in victoria would mean OFF with the green party stranglehold & ON with approval for the KMI operation, including tanker ship traffic?
> 
> 
> .


not quite, the ndp already own almost the whole of vancouver island and victoria (all the green seats are on the island)

the ndp need to expand in the north and east which is liberal territory because there is so little work up there, horgan wants to solidify his support in the working class especially up north and east

for sure, there is common ground between the greens and ndp but if horgan could grab 3 or 4 more seats and sideline the greens he would do it in a heartbeat and that way they wouldn’t be hobbled by green environmental extremism

i believe that if horgan could find a way he would ok kinder morgan to appeal to workers (especially in the north) but as it now stands, his hands are tied by the greens


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> I always hear the rhetoric about Energy East or other oil sands pipelines providing gas to wean us off Middle East oil, where the reality is, all the oil sands oil would simply be exported as we don't have refineries to process dilbit in Canada on either East or West coast.



the above is true. I don't know why the urban myths keep circulating that dilbit can easily pipe into a teensy tiny toy processing shack called a refinery & out will come, just like maple syrup, cheap gasoline for the car

whether east coast or west coast, dilbit has to be exported to the big foreign refineries that are capable of processing it.






bgc_fan said:


> We are told that it is non-economical to build these refineries, but that is where a crown corporation could step in and provide this capability for Canada's benefit.
> 
> After all, I am sure you could better buy in if a local refinery were built, providing local jobs and cheaper gas, than the current situation where your land is being used as transit, and you are on the hook for spill cleanup.



it's the price tag mon. They say a big enough, complex enough refinery to handle dilbit would cost $50 billion. How many tar sands fields would it take, how many centuries of production, to pay for construction of that super-refinery?

the psychology is wrong for building oil refineries these days. You know what they'll say. There's no future in fossil fuels. The zero point has arrived. Self-sustaining energy has already begun. By 2068 when those super-refinery bonds mature, everybody who's still alive will be driving tesla. The bonds will be worthless.

.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I don't think many people understand how dependent we are on fossil fuels. We need to keep the fuel flowing for quite some time.

I doubt anyone on this site is a bigger champion of renewable energy than I am, although I know others share my verve for sustainability. I wish we could use nothing but renewables but we can't.

Tesla is scaling at maniacal speed... cars... solar... storage... and it's not even remotely enough. We aren't adding renewables fast enough to take care of the *new* demand, never mind replace the old.

It's going to happen but we can't kick the hose out of the oil can just yet. We need to keep pushing to ramp the new electric stuff ASAP but we also need to keep burning dead dinosaurs for a long time.

If we stopped sourcing new fossil based fuels, the old wells and sources would run their useful life, need to be shuttered, and not be replaced. Each year, several percent of wells are end of life. The price of energy would skyrocket. There would be a global melt down and that wouldn't exactly speed the ramp of sustainable energy sources.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> it's the price tag mon. They say a big enough, complex enough refinery to handle dilbit would cost $50 billion. How many tar sands fields would it take, how many centuries of production, to pay for construction of that super-refinery?
> 
> the psychology is wrong for building oil refineries these days. You know what they'll say. There's no future in fossil fuels. The zero point has arrived. Self-sustaining energy has already begun. By 2068 when those super-refinery bonds mature, everybody who's still alive will be driving tesla. The bonds will be worthless.
> .


Do you have a reference for the cost? I have never found what the cost could be other than 100s of billions which strike me as a little much.

Not sure if it would require 50 year bonds, but it is hard to speculate that electric cars will dominate. Perhaps hydrogen cars will win out which could conceivably use gas as fuel source.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

Hydrogen isn't a great idea. Good luck to Toyota on that one. Everyone else is going battery.

I predict the "big 3" will be Hyundai, VW, and Tesla in 15 years.


I'm pretty sure we could order a bad *** refinery on Alibaba for a couple of thousand FOB Vancouver.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

bgc_fan said:


> Do you have a reference for the cost? I have never found what the cost could be other than 100s of billions which strike me as a little much.



good question! i got the $50B figure originally from an upstate - new york state i believe - gas executive who hung out in the early days of the transCanada pipe thread. A humungous thread which has not seen the light of day lately.

then as now, varous cmffers were bipping & bopping about how we should have refineries to process dilbit ourselves in canada et patati et patata. He explained the economies of scale & roughly indicated $50 billion CAD as a ballpark fig for new super-refinery construction.

this person's interest in the TRP thread was to try to gauge how & to what extent fracked gas from northeastern US could affect the then-nascent TRP plans to ship dilbit via one of the 3 pipes in the mainline. 

he said he was a TRP permabear who had shorted the stock while going long enbridge. He was a US taxpayer so i have no clue how the TRP dividends he would have had to pay out as a shorter would be deductible to himself in the US of A. The very idea is gruesome enough to think about for a canadian taxpayer.

later the costing of super-refineries that can handle bitumenous crudes came up here & there in various threads. I agree that hundreds of billions of $$ seems greatly exaggerated.

i was only using electric cars as a metaphor. Who knows, radioactivitiy and/or alien invasion may have turned us into a different species by 2068.


.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I don't know anything about the cost of heavy oil refining but I've toured some major power generation facilities of a major power company and they round in billion dollar increments.

Think about the office full of dozens of highly paid lawyers, lobbyists, accountants, executives, etc. that would have to be carried for years before the blue collars come in to do actual work on a refinery. KM is in the same position. The overhead is pretty heavy. I don't blame them for grousing over the time and cost.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

in 2013 david black was talking about raising 16 billion for the refinery at kitimat for the now defunct northern gateway pipeline and apparently there were plenty of investors ready to bring as much as 25 billion to the table if need be

but black was pegging the cost at 13 billion plus 3 to make it ultra-clean

if it was politically possible i think there would be no problem raising the money

https://biv.com/article/2013/03/black-secures-25-billion-for-kitimat-oil-refinery


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

TomB19 said:


> I'm pretty sure we could order a bad *** refinery on Alibaba for a couple of thousand FOB Vancouver.



a perfume refinery? lavender? damascus rose? or that exquisite never-to-be-forgotten fragrance of the true antique tea roses from china? they don't sell those rose bushes any more, one has to find them still growing in some long-ago forgotten or even abandoned garden.

i had an antique tea rose in my 19th century walled garden in france. It was a shrub. Early every spring, when it would flower, i'd rush out in mud boots & inhale myself silly on the opening buds, which were a pale yellow blushed with salmon kind of colour.

immediately in front of the rose bush my seven-year-old had constructed something with wings & a steering wheel out of a packing crate. Evidently it was a Camel Sopwith. He'd sit inside wearing a navy blue ski jacket of mine with the hood drawn tight around his face like a WW I aviator helmet. I think he'd made goggles. He'd growl those engine noises that little boys always make.

one morning when i was out blissing on the rose buds, my son passed me a sheaf of papers with drawings from inside the Sopwith. "Voici mes plans de bataille," he said. That was how i learned he'd turned into un mec.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

fatcat said:


> in 2013 david black was talking about raising 16 billion for the refinery at kitimat for the now defunct northern gateway pipeline and apparently there were plenty of investors ready to bring as much as 25 billion to the table if need be
> 
> but black was pegging the cost at 13 billion plus 3 to make it ultra-clean
> 
> ...


That was an interesting article. First time I ever heard of such a proposal. Too bad nothing ever came of it. Though there is no indication of the capacity, or how much of BC's requirement it would meet.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> in 2013 david black was talking about raising 16 billion for the refinery at kitimat for the now defunct northern gateway pipeline and apparently there were plenty of investors ready to bring as much as 25 billion to the table if need be
> 
> but black was pegging the cost at 13 billion plus 3 to make it ultra-clean
> 
> ...




i always used-to-think that media tycoon david black was especially full of hot air when it came to his westcoast dilbit scheme.

i'd be suspicious of any $13 to $16 billion refinery that black thought he might build.

besides, weren't all those pie-in-the-sky dilbit "refineries" on the BC coast just kind of pre-refineries? the product was still going to have to be shipped to china for final processing into usable crude to be sold on world markets?

black's project was one of three. Another was eagle spirit, which altaRed has mentioned somewhat skeptically upthread. The third was the only one with real financial backing, which was coming from singapore. It was the one with specially heated & cooled railcars engineered by SNC lavalin in order to transport viscous dilbit as solid "neatbit." Apparently to be shaped like hockey pucks. These, the promoters pointed out, would not leak if the railcars ruptured.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

black would properly be put in the category of "showman" i think but he appeared semi-serious and there would be no problem getting backers for the project

but it was always dead in the water, there was no political will to get this done at all in hippie bc

and yes, you are correct pie, it was going to be a partial refinery so the product being shipped was something like a light oil not a distillate


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> black would properly be put in the category of "showman" i think but he appeared semi-serious and there would be no problem getting backers for the project



seriously, what backers did he ever have? in reality? can you name even one?

iirc he once indicated to a journo that he was expecting the federal gummint to give him a substantial green hand. However no one ever saw any sign that the feds had heard of this


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> seriously, what backers did he ever have? in reality? can you name even one?
> 
> iirc he once indicated to a journo that he was expecting the federal gummint to give him a substantial green hand. However no one ever saw any sign that the feds had heard of this


it was effectively just talk on all sides since no one ever really believed it could overcome political opposition ... trudeau drove a stake through it but i am sure shell expressed interest and if there was a chance of it actually being built there would have been plenty of energy money available to build it but nobody except david black and maybe not even him took it really seriously ... it really never stood a serious chance


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> it was effectively just talk on all sides since no one ever really believed it could overcome political opposition ... trudeau drove a stake through it but i am sure shell expressed interest and if there was a chance of it actually being built there would have been plenty of energy money available to build it but nobody except david black and maybe not even him took it really seriously ... it really never stood a serious chance



where's the evidence that "trudeau drove a stake through it"

iirc trudeau was just an ordinary MP at that time. Not even a shadow cabinet minister. He had no powers that could have lent themselves to stake driving. His 3rd child Hadrien - who would turn out to be the best foreign diplomat canada has ever sent abroad, instantly winning all hearts on all continents at the age of 2 & 3 years - Hadrien had not even been born yet. 

did shell really express interest? do you have something concrete or can you remember anything that would suggest distinctly shell?



at that time a few years back, i myself took great interest in the 3 "ishmael" atypical refinery plans & in all their various permutations as time passed & as they changed (eagle spirit was the one that changed the most, also changed the most frequently) (whereas pacific future energy with the heatable/coolable SNC lavalin railcars was the most stable) (of the three, david black's plan was the least innovative & the least interesting)

among these 3 alternative projects, only pacific future energy had any real backing. The backing did not necessarily want to come forward, but sooner or later canadians were able to get a good glimpse. The backers were experienced energy czars in singapore.

the other 2 plans, as altaRed had hinted upthread, were relying mostly on hot air, also on the great spirit & on what they hoped would be a very generous handout from ottawa.


.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

trudeau issued a set of fossil fuel directives that effectively killed oil tanker traffic on bc’s northern coast ... this effectively ended northern gateway


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> trudeau issued a set of fossil fuel directives that effectively killed oil tanker traffic on bc’s northern coast ... this effectively ended northern gateway



but that was years later than the heyday of the 3 ishmael plans, namely eagle spirit, david black's plan & pacific future energy. 

the first 2 were already dead in the water before trudeau was even elected PM. They had no backers.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

I can’t recall a specific article but here is an article about shells lng terminal at kitimat on which they want to spend 40 billion

https://www.straight.com/news/10374...-potential-40-billion-bc-project-will-proceed

i am almost certain I recall them expressing interest in the northern gateway refinery and based on the above article 16 billion would have been a drop in the bucket, even 25 billion would be doable

but as I say, i don’t think anyone in BC on all sides of the issue ever thought that a refinery would be built, indeed there is huge opposition to lng terminals which is a much less toxic product


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Apparently Alberta is prepared to buy the trans mountain pipline. that may be the best solution. 
BC's opposition is all grandstanding to please Weaver who is, in my view, a utopian nut.


----------



## kelaa (Apr 5, 2016)

Why do you guys expect Horgan to not fight TMEP? Wasn't that one of his campaign platforms? A politician trying to keep their word blows everyone's mind?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kelaa said:


> Why do you guys expect Horgan to not fight TMEP? Wasn't that one of his campaign platforms? A politician trying to keep their word blows everyone's mind?


Fighting to a pragmatic/practical degree is one thing and appropriate to optimize benefits for BCers. Being fanatical about it with questionable and aggressive legal wrangling is going beyond reasonableness AND beyond the call of duty. 

I really think Weaver has told him.... go to the end of the line fighting this one cause otherwise we pull support and your gov't will fall and there will be another election. I think Horgan would sell his first born to stay in power for even a little while longer. His family jewels are in a noose with the rope tightening.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Why doesn't TM just start pumping some diluted bitumen in the current pipeline? BC can't stop that. That's the Green's line in the sand, apparently, but they've indicated its for the expansion line.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Why doesn't TM just start pumping some diluted bitumen in the current pipeline? BC can't stop that. That's the Green's line in the sand, apparently, but they've indicated its for the expansion line.




my understanding is that they are shipping dilbit thu the existing pipe & out to asia in tankers via the existing burnaby terminal. Have been for years.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> my understanding is that they are shipping dilbit thu the existing pipe & out to asia in tankers via the existing burnaby terminal. Have been for years.


I don't know if they ship traditional oil sands dilbit from Fort Mac but I understand they ship some heavy crudes, perhaps from Cold Lake, Lloyd, etc. I don't know how heavy they can go.

https://www.transmountain.com/product


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I'm unable to find a full capture (~25min) of the CBC live feed of Trudeau's press conference after meeting with Notley and Horgan today. Only small news clips seem to exist.
Anyone who saw the complete live feed would have seen a very distracted-looking PM, at times spending long moments stumbling for words. Maybe jet-lagged or sleep deprived? Maybe in shock over the import of this issue and what it's implications might be to the Feds?
Having Couillard of the Quebec liberal government open his mouth for no good reason certainly doesn't help.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

You have to expect the pompous positioning of QC in such "constitutional" matters. I think even most QCers understand that goes with the territory, has seen it a hundred times, and doesn't take it all too seriously. After all, the BQ and PQ don't have majority support on much of anything.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> I'm unable to find a full capture (~25min) of the CBC live feed of Trudeau's press conference after meeting with Notley and Horgan today. Only small news clips seem to exist.
> Anyone who saw the complete live feed would have seen a very distracted-looking PM, at times spending long moments stumbling for words. Maybe jet-lagged or sleep deprived? Maybe in shock over the import of this issue and what it's implications might be to the Feds?
> Having Couillard of the Quebec liberal government open his mouth for no good reason certainly doesn't help.



The video and audio is poor, but this is all I could find. Yes, there was some stumbling, particularly with about 5-6 minutes left in video.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...-money-kinder-morgan-houston-new-york-toronto


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i supect trudeau is going to throw money at the project in the form of guarantees of protection in the event of spills

though trudeau said:


> He added, however, that he will stand down if the court rules against his government. The B.C. Premier said the tone of the meeting was cordial, noting that *Mr. Trudeau assured him Ottawa would not pursue measures to punish B.C. over its pipeline position.*


this is why the whole thing is going to fail ... lack of political will and lack of coherence is going to start to cost this country dearly

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...al-backing-for-vital-trans-mountain-pipeline/


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> You have to expect the pompous positioning of QC in such "constitutional" matters. I think even most QCers understand that goes with the territory, has seen it a hundred times, and doesn't take it all too seriously. After all, the BQ and PQ don't have majority support on much of anything.



philippe couillard is neither a bloquiste nor is he a pequiste. He's a plain old quebec liberal party leader. His party was elected, so he's the premier.

when it comes to the transMountain pipeline, quebec politicians were invited to speak out in support of the BC greens. Andrew weaver has suddenly begun to emote about his "good friends" in quebec, although no one knows if weaver has ever even stepped foot in la belle province. 

it's all about strenghthening provincial powers in the never-ending federal/provincial constitutional seesaw. BC is challenging federal control in the courts on 2 issues, both related to kinder morgan. It's the federal control aspect that fires up quebec sovereignists, not any pipeline environmental issue, imho. 

most quebecers are ignoring what quebec politicians have to say re the transMountain pipeline project, as altaRed mentions.


.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

heard on local radio that notley is readying a bill that will give alberta the right to limit supplies of crude, natural gas and gasoline

this potentially will raise the cost of gas on the lower mainland (we pay quite a bit more on the island than they do on the lower mainland) by, get this, 45-cents per litre

this will absolutely do the job of getting everyone's attention in bc

i wonder if it will give horgan the cover to cut and run since i still believe he is only holding so tough because weaver has a knife in his ribs


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i'm not convinced that weaver is the true éminence grise while horgan is simply the puppet he operates. Perhaps they are more like the twins castor & pollux.

meanwhile i observe weaver complaining in at least a couple news videos about how voter reform failed to gain traction after trudeau was elected. One of the first things trudeau did as PM was to send out a national commission to travel the country; the commission concluded that canadians were not interested in changing the voting platform from the present system to proportional representation. This of course left the NDP & particularly the Green party in the same predicament as always: they are not represented in ottawa according to the popular vote.

tentatively, my hypothesis goes that weaver, horgan & Co never forgot their resentment at being left high & dry once again, even while they decided to move on to feather their own BC nest as they see fit. 

weaver in particular appears to have a strong vision of BC in the future, with vancouver as a jewelled urban metropolis centerfold some 20 years hence. Me i have no reason to believe weaver's vision is either right or wrong; as best i can make out it seems to go something like this:



canada's economy is booming, we do not need an oil industry ...


BC's economy in particular is doing better than other provinces, BC unemployment is lowest in canada, BC has almost no native energy industry, DUH ...


what we need is a smart economy, not a regressive economy from yesteryear based on a toxic synthetic substance named dilbit that isn't even oil ...


in BC we're working on tomorrow projects like we're going to get Tesla to build a giga-factory up here ...


vancouver is on track to become the world's greenest city by 2020 ...


we are not going to put our pristine coastal waters at risk by increasing dirty regressive oil tanker traffic 28-fold (here weaver does not supply any facts but he says dilbit tankers sailing out of burnaby/vancouver harbour will increase not by a factor of 7 as most environmentalists have been complaining, but by a multiplier of 28.)


well, that's what weaver says. That's what the ROC has to work with. Does not seem impossible, imho. Does seem doable. There are still plenty of open options. One thing looking good is that trudeau has not made any mistakes so far. Ottawa is never going to impose the war measures act or any equivalent, parties calling for this kind of instant crushing solution are naiive out of their skulls imho.



.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

If you want to see some pristine British Columbia waters, be sure to head on down to English Bay in Vancouver before proceeding to your local pipeline protest site. That is, if you can see the waters past the dozens of giant tankers and other ships sitting in the harbour spewing god knows what, and can stand the smell of raw/barely treated sewage stink water. 

Yeah. Pristine. Won't see that traffic stop, because, you know, it actually delivers stuff Vancouverites need or produce.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> i'm not convinced that weaver is the true éminence grise while horgan is simply the puppet he operates. Perhaps they are more like the twins castor & pollux.
> 
> meanwhile i observe weaver complaining in at least a couple news videos about how voter reform failed to gain traction after trudeau was elected. One of the first things trudeau did as PM was to send out a national commission to travel the country; the commission concluded that canadians were not interested in changing the voting platform from the present system to proportional representation. This of course left the NDP & particularly the Green party in the same predicament as always: they are not represented in ottawa according to the popular vote.
> 
> ...


sure those are all classic green bullet points on the campaign trail, problem is, we have to eat in the meantime and in the meantime they want to take a wrecking ball to the "traditional" economy which here in bc and alberta means ... resource extraction ... you can only build so many hospitals on the money you make from photography safari's

thinking ahead to the "new economy" or the "next economy" is a fine and smart idea but you have to transition in that direction and the greens as well as the ndp, are addled, hobbled, by their convictions, they really believe their own fantasies are happening here and now and they aren't, they think tesla's giga factory is up and running in the here and now just outside vancouver employing thousands and all on green energy

i see canada's economy as especially fragile to shocks and innovation, the destruction of the resource sector, robotics, nafta, the overhang of debt, a housing crash ... there are all kinds of things that can derail our economy, we need to keep it all going as best we can as we transition and the greens don't seem to get this, the ndp do a bit more but they are so addled by their devotion to public sector unions and government spending that they really can't be trusted

trudeau's leadership on the resource file and the west has been shite and he (we) will pay for it i am afraid, i do hope, hope, hope that alberta passes their bill and vancouverites (and me) are paying that extra 45-cents a litre, that will do much to twist weaver's knife into horgans midsection


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

doctrine said:


> If you want to see some pristine British Columbia waters, be sure to head on down to English Bay in Vancouver before proceeding to your local pipeline protest site. That is, if you can see the waters past the dozens of giant tankers and other ships sitting in the harbour spewing god knows what, and can stand the smell of raw/barely treated sewage stink water.
> 
> Yeah. Pristine. Won't see that traffic stop, because, you know, it actually delivers stuff Vancouverites need or produce.


i live 4 blocks from the juan de fuca straight and see those tankers slide by day in day out, the canadians on the canada side of the straight and the americans on their side 

those tankers represent a strong message to the usa that we have options for our products and we aren't dependent on the usa to sell our oil

the lefties who normally hate the usa seem to have forgotten that shutting down kinder morgan will deliver us more firmly into washingtons grip


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Not just local fatcat, the story of Alberta's possible oil embargo is on Bloomberg.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ttle-escalates-as-alberta-readies-oil-embargo

Again we should reach a deal for that crude to be refined and used in Canada where we need it. Down the road we can revisit the idea of exporting it if need be.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't want $2 gas, but I think Horgan et al is just a sideshow. First Nations are vowing to block the pipeline no matter what, so it's pretty much dead. They are promising to ramp up their efforts, and they have an ally in teh city of Burnaby as well. Expect civil/criminal disobedience on a massive scale, and even sabotage in the event it starts being built. How many people are they willing to arrest and charge before it becomes too much?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

new dog said:


> Not just local fatcat, the story of Alberta's possible oil embargo is on Bloomberg.
> 
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ttle-escalates-as-alberta-readies-oil-embargo
> 
> Again we should reach a deal for that crude to be refined and used in Canada where we need it. Down the road we can revisit the idea of exporting it if need be.


Just can't afford the ten's and ten's of billions of dollars to refine the oil in Canada and then export finished product by pipeline at less than cost. We can't possibly use millions of barrels per day of extra finished product and who is going to pick up the losses in export markets? It will take 5-10 years to build a single refinery as well.

Refining in Canada has been studied so often that the paperwork may fill a whole warehouse. Besides there will then be obstacles to pipeline (and by tanker, rail car and truck) 'explosive' gasoline and jet fuel out of Canada. There is no satisfying those who refuse to be responsible for themselves.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> First Nations are vowing to block the pipeline no matter what, so it's pretty much dead. They are promising to ramp up their efforts, and they have an ally in teh city of Burnaby as well. Expect civil/criminal disobedience on a massive scale, and even sabotage in the event it starts being built. How many people are they willing to arrest and charge before it becomes too much?


I grew up near a large six nations reserve, and worked on it a few times even... you could have opened the newspaper for as far back as I can remember (about 20 year, though I'm assuming more) and read similar commentary and concerns about practically any development project that's happened in Canada since god knows when.

It was always fluff, and the stuff always got built anyways, and presumably the chief got a nice payment (his house was huge that's for sure). What the hell has happened in the past few years to make a majority of you city folk think that "first nations are vowing to block" means anything other than what it has always meant?


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

nathan79 said:


> ... How many people are they willing to arrest and charge...


As many as are that stupid.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

new dog said:


> ... Again we should reach a deal for that crude to be refined and used in Canada where we need it. Down the road we can revisit the idea of exporting it if need be.


How 'bout you roll over first.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

peterk said:


> I grew up near a large six nations reserve, and worked on it a few times even... you could have opened the newspaper for as far back as I can remember (about 20 year, though I'm assuming more) and read similar commentary and concerns about practically any development project that's happened in Canada since god knows when.
> 
> It was always fluff, and the stuff always got built anyways, and presumably the chief got a nice payment (his house was huge that's for sure). What the hell has happened in the past few years to make a majority of you city folk think that "first nations are vowing to block" means anything other than what it has always meant?


Maybe that's how it goes in Alberta, but you might be underestimating the dedication of First Nations and other protestors in BC. They're a whole other breed of crazy, just like their counterparts in Quebec.

Myself, I don't really have a stance on the pipeline so far. I would like to see something done about our gasoline supply issues here in the Lower Mainland (which are causing prices to soar), but I haven't seen any agreement on what difference the pipeline would make. If, as some suggest, it's actually going to increase gas prices, then I'll be happy to say they can shove it.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

fatcat said:


> this potentially will raise the cost of gas on the lower mainland (we pay quite a bit more on the island than they do on the lower mainland) by, get this, 45-cents per litre...


We always fill up on the island when we travel from West Van. Save 5 to 10 cents a litre.


fatcat said:


> the lefties who normally hate the usa seem to have forgotten that shutting down kinder morgan will deliver us more firmly into washingtons grip


Yes the greenies seem to lose sight of who is behind the opposition to Canada's independence.


new dog said:


> Again we should reach a deal for that crude to be refined and used in Canada where we need it. Down the road we can revisit the idea of exporting it if need be.


Nice theory but does not pass the economic test.


nathan79 said:


> Myself, I don't really have a stance on the pipeline so far. I would like to see something done about our gasoline supply issues here in the Lower Mainland (which are causing prices to soar), but I haven't seen any agreement on what difference the pipeline would make. If, as some suggest, it's actually going to increase gas prices, then I'll be happy to say they can shove it.


A pipeline will free up rail capacity to get other products to market. Transporting more oil by tanker train is a bad idea.


----------



## Chica (Jan 19, 2016)

If Kinder Morgan was trying to build a pipeline through Quebec and the people said no, don't want it, would the prime minister back off? 

The Cherry Point refinery in Blaine, WA just a few miles south of the border needs to send more fuel north. BC already buys some fuel for them. Send more cheap fuel up from the states instead of the expensive stuff from Alberta. Win win for the WA governor.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Chica said:


> If Kinder Morgan was trying to build a pipeline through Quebec and the people said no, don't want it, would the prime minister back off?
> 
> The Cherry Point refinery in Blaine, WA just a few miles south of the border needs to send more fuel north. BC already buys some fuel for them. Send more cheap fuel up from the states instead of the expensive stuff from Alberta. Win win for the WA governor.


Where do you think the oil for Puget Sound refineries comes from? Other than what is already shipped by existing TransMountain, much of the rest comes in by tanker from places like Alaska* and California and points beyond. Straight down Juan de Fuca Strait. Lower mainlanders are out of touch with what it takes to keep the world moving with refined products.

How many rail tank cars, or tanker trucks, or marine transport, or pipelines full of explosive gasoline do you want coming through your own backyard?

* Prudhoe Bay crude has been plying the coast of BC since production started in the early '70s.

Added: BCers would have to compete with all the other customers of WA state refineries for gasoline, jet fuel and the like too throughout the Pacific NW states

For completeness, note crude distillation capacity of 631,700 barrels per day https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_refining_in_Washington_state


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Chica said:


> The Cherry Point refinery in Blaine, WA just a few miles south of the border needs to send more fuel north. BC already buys some fuel for them. Send more cheap fuel up from the states instead of the expensive stuff from Alberta. Win win for the WA governor.


The oil from Alberta will always be cheaper than the stuff from the states, even if we are getting closer to world price. There are different world prices for different grades and types of oil. The oil from US would run around 55-60$/bbl, while the stuff from AB costs 20-25$/bbl right now. Opening up TM2 would increase the AB sale price, but nowhere near to matching the US price.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

The oil sands will always have a problem, even if we can close the price a little bit. Alberta has tried to "upsell" an inferior crude stock for many years now. Even though extraction methods have improved exponentially and cost has come down, this product will never be as desirable as light sweet out of deep wells or shale. I think they know that too and wont develop it much more, just close the gap a bit and let it ride. 

Canada shale is too costly now as well. We should have drilled the Bakken harder like ND did in the last decade.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think we will see more partial upgrading as well to reduce the costs of diluent over time. Bitumen can be blended with a slip stream of highly upgraded SCO to make it transportable in pipelines without diluent. It's sometimes known in the industry as 'dumbbell crude' because its molecular constituents are concentrated in the very low and the higher ends of the CH molecule. In the '90s, my team did feasibility work on what the profile should look like and be attractive to PADD II refineries. 

The oil sands are not going away. There is 'zero' finding cost but heavy development costs, whereas conventional oil, even shale oil, has both a finding cost and a development cost. It's a matter of how good the specific reservoirs are and recovery percentage (and cost). Oil is not just oil. Every reservoir is somewhat unique.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> The oil from Alberta will always be cheaper than the stuff from the states, even if we are getting closer to world price. There are different world prices for different grades and types of oil. The oil from US would run around 55-60$/bbl, while the stuff from AB costs 20-25$/bbl right now. Opening up TM2 would increase the AB sale price, but nowhere near to matching the US price.




but does the US have any dilbit for sale though. It's my understanding that alberta sands bitumen is unique in the world. It's a low grade quality, requires a first processing to even reach the grade of syncrude, which must then be refined into petroleum products. Therefore dilbit is always priced below other heavy crudes.

.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> How 'bout you roll over first.




elizabeth may is making the same mistake. Telling BCers in her riding that "refinery jobs will be lost" in canada if alberta dilbit is exported out of this country.



> The claim the project will create thousands of jobs is "highly questionable," [elizabeth may] added, pointing out how refinery jobs would be lost if unrefined cheap bitumen goes out of country for processing.


seems there's no use repeating to these folks that there's no refinery in canada that can handle dilbit. It's my understanding that the nearest such facilities are the Valero refinery complex in texas, hence the drive for keystoneXL. It's my further understanding that dilbit shipped from the kinder morgan terminal in burnaby BC will be headed to asia.

we keep repeating in cmf forum that the transMountain project does not imperil "refinery" jobs in canada that don't exist anyhow. But some on here refuse to get it, so the issue keeps coming up again & again. Wearisome. Like elizabeth may at her most annoying.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/liberals-being-blackmailed-kinder-morgan-233600459.html


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> The oil sands are not going away.


Not going away, but destined to be a marginal product. And probably land locked to a certain degree. I would bet TMX is the last pipeline we see built in this country. 

Sands are too big of a target for interest groups. Little wells all strung out over the province are a better bet. Nobody protesting those.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

HP, the US does not produce diluted bitumen. The closest is California heavy that has been produced for decades and refined in LA refineries. Venezuela has Orinoco heavy which is similar to our steam assisted bitumen production south of Fort Mac and around Cold Lake and Lloyd. The majors actually built upgraders near the Venezuelan cost at San Jose to upgrade the bitumen so it could be shipped by tanker to Gulf Coast refineries, the same refineries as some of Canada's bitumen (dilbit) goes. After wingnut Hugo Chavez nationalized all this stuff and raided PDVSA (the national oil company) of critical capital to subsidize social programs and consumer staples, much of this infrastructure has fallen into disrepair and oil production continues to decline. US Gulf Coast refineries are becoming more reliant on Canadian dilbit.

Our mined oil sand bitumen is close to being unique in the world in that it is all heavy since it is right at/near the surface and all lighter hydrocarbons vented off into the atmosphere eons ago. IOW, and generally speaking, the close the 'oil' is to the surface, the heavier it is. And heavier the oil is, the more processing it needs to become to be a refined product. Colorado shale is somewhat close to our mined oil sands given its shallow depth.

Nobleea is right in that there are dozens of grades of heavy oil and bitumen alone, never mind dozens of grades of crude from elsewhere in the world. The more heavy the oil is, and the more contaminants it contains such as sulphur and metals, the more it takes (and the costlier it is) to refine.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> elizabeth may is making the same mistake. Telling BCers in her riding that "refinery jobs will be lost" in canada if alberta dilbit is exported out of this country.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She is indeed in the business of misinformation, if not plain outright lies, aka DJ Trump. There just isn't enough counter-action to rebuff her in the media, OR the news media doesn't find counter-action sexy enough to report. CBC thrives on sensationalism so their reporting is pretty much always biased to the left. 

The Burnaby and Prince George refineries will continue to exist for their natural lives, refining 'light' oil crude. There is enough of that around to keep them and some oil via TM to Cherry Point in Blaine, WA going for some time. FWIW, Shell Canada came the closest to bridging the gap by building their upgrader at Scotford in front of their refinery so that their own refinery could then refine their dilbit from Muskeg River oil sands mine. 

Suncor and Imperial Oil will likely do what it takes to keep their Edmonton refineries full and if they have too, I am guessing they will build more upgraders to process their Fort Mac bitumen production as light oil production continues to decline and becomes more pricey.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

nathan79 said:


> ... First Nations are vowing to block the pipeline no matter what, so it's pretty much dead ...


First Nations don't seem to be unified any more than other Canadians.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-indigenous-people-trans-mountain-1.4253470

Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> new dog said:
> 
> 
> > ... Again we should reach a deal for that crude to be refined and used in Canada where we need it. Down the road we can revisit the idea of exporting it if need be.
> ...





> Another major issue is excess refining capacity. While *Canada* only refines about a quarter of the oil it produces, it *refines more oil than it consumes*. That means any *newly constructed refineries would be refining oil for export, not for internal consumption*.


https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canada-Would-Rather-Export-Oil-Than-Refine-It.html

Refined or crude, for more money or for less - the key issue is transportation. 


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> First Nations don't seem to be unified any more than other Canadians.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pro-pipeline-indigenous-people-trans-mountain-1.4253470
> 
> Cheers


this article highlights what i have been reading for a long time, there is considerable disagreement among first-nations groups about development, some being pro and some con

the problem remains the same, all voices are now equal, we live in a world of social license and this means that projects like trans-mountain, if they can't be outright stopped, will be bled to death because ... everyone ... now gets their turn to speak

trudeau, the putative leader of our country has no more weight than an any first-nations band chief no matter how small


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

When one sees so many misinformed, or uninformed, posters on this forum with respect to the oil business, it is no wonder a third or more Canadians can be swayed by faux news coming from vested interest sources.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

FC, there is one group that is not involved in the speakers protest circuit. The tax paying employed public silent majority. Just wait until that group gets fed up with it all. Many are already there. 

Thats how a trump got elected in the states when SJW go off the deep end.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

AltaRed said:


> When one sees so many misinformed, or uninformed, posters on this forum with respect to the oil business, it is no wonder a third or more Canadians can be swayed by faux news coming from vested interest sources.


Alta, if you dont live in calgary or never worked the patch, of course there will be a lot of know nothings. I dont know jack about a lot of canada's other resources but I know enough that we need them to keep our standard of living up. I dont know why anyone would want to hamper our economic future. Maybe a lot of SJWs dont have kids - thats another problem for canada too.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

tygrus said:


> Alta, if you dont live in calgary or never worked the patch, of course there will be a lot of know nothings. I dont know jack about a lot of canada's other resources but I know enough that we need them to keep our standard of living up. I dont know why anyone would want to hamper our economic future. Maybe a lot of SJWs dont have kids - thats another problem for canada too.


I had no intention of being critical at all of CMF posters. The intent was to point out due to the number of CMFers that don't know that much about the industry, it is not surprising how much of Canada can be hoodwinked by vested interests.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

I would like Liz May et al to explain how exactly GVA would get their energy from solar panels and wind. Neither are abundant in that area. Maybe they dont realize how many panels and windmills would be needed to power that place. Will first nations allow them on their land? There are probably boats with diesel and heating fuel landing daily in Haida Gwaii.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

tygrus said:


> I would like Liz May et al to explain how exactly GVA would get their energy.


Well, BC is blessed with massive sources of hydro power. Even so, the greens wanted to cancel site-C and almost got their way. Amongst the provinces, BC and QC, and to some extent MB are actually in a position to go pretty-well electric, if they wanted to. The greens would have to properly embrace hydro to pull it off, but it's feasible.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is indeed 'mostly' feasible but even wonderous GVR cannot shed hydrocarbons entirely. I can't see the day when all industrial usage, YVR operations, and marine traffic will be 100% electric.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> cannot shed hydrocarbons entirely.


This reminds me of another area where the greens cannot seem to get out of their own way. Natural gas has a good deal smaller carbon footprint than oil for transportation and half that of coal for electricity. It is also practically free in Alberta and BC due to overproduction with nowhere, thanks to the greens, to send it other than into the US who have their own glut. So why not make a point of exporting LNG to Asia where the Chinese can generate electricity with gas instead of coal and really make a dent in the carbon situation? Increasingly LNG is a feasible fuel of choice for shipping. Vancouver, Kitimat and Rupert should all be providing LNG facilities to encourage and support low carbon footprint shipping in and out of BC.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> How 'bout you roll over first.


I can see by your comment that you lack the ability to debate or add anything constructive. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate you trying or making the effort because that is the only way to improve.

Altared my thoughts were towards Canadians having a secure and reliable source of energy for the future if alternatives and technology aren't expected fill that void. It is also towards having less oil tanker traffic leaving the coast and lowering the environmental risks in the future. 

I realize the costs are very high and refineries take years to build. My points above may not be enough to justify the cost. Around the world countries have spent far more on military to secure energy access or to protect their own.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Actually new dog, I got short-fused reading yet another uninformed comment. I didn't have the patience to offer constructive comment. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to entertain us with your uniformed opinions though.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

gardner said:


> Well, BC is blessed with massive sources of hydro power. Even so, the greens wanted to cancel site-C and almost got their way. Amongst the provinces, BC and QC, and to some extent MB are actually in a position to go pretty-well electric, if they wanted to. The greens would have to properly embrace hydro to pull it off, but it's feasible.


Hydro requires disturbing and rerouting waterways and flooding plains plus transmission lines through sensitive habitat to land in downtown Vancouver. How is that more environmentally friendly than a pipeline?


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

BC's Site C controversy is plenty of evidence of the widespread environmental destruction caused by hydro power.

If only there were a virtually unlimited source of carbon free power with virtually no environmental footprint. HMM.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gardner said:


> This reminds me of another area where the greens cannot seem to get out of their own way. Natural gas has a good deal smaller carbon footprint than oil for transportation and half that of coal for electricity. It is also practically free in Alberta and BC due to overproduction with nowhere, thanks to the greens, to send it other than into the US who have their own glut. So why not make a point of exporting LNG to Asia where the Chinese can generate electricity with gas instead of coal and really make a dent in the carbon situation? Increasingly LNG is a feasible fuel of choice for shipping. Vancouver, Kitimat and Rupert should all be providing LNG facilities to encourage and support low carbon footprint shipping in and out of BC.


Ummm. A number of project proponents tried the LNG thing but again red tape on everything associated with the developments, and greed from the provincial government extracting benefits killed all those deals. The Greens were all upset over LNG too. The pipeline to the coast was going to destroy the Great Bear Rainforest and heaven forbid, the production of natural gas to feed the LNG plants would destroy the very ground we walk on. 

A few simple examples https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...inforest-agreement-reflect-its-lasting-impact and https://www.nationalobserver.com/20...t-ticking-even-faster-salmon-whales-and-bears

One cannot even take a poo in the woods any more without there being some possible calamity. I guess this country should just be left/returned to wilderness and we should all emigrate somewhere else.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Actually new dog, I got short-fused reading yet another uninformed comment. I didn't have the patience to offer constructive comment. That doesn't mean you aren't welcome to entertain us with your uniformed opinions though.


That was an improvement from the last comment so keep practicing.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

tygrus said:


> How is that more environmentally friendly than a pipeline?


I think from a pure greenie perspective the difference is that the pipeline also implies the downstream risk of handling oil and the inherent implication that the oil will get used for something -- eg burnt or get made into plastic. The hydro proposition is at least a one-time f**-up of a watershed or something, but not too much additional downstream evil.

In the specific case of site-C, I think the NDP understood how many union jobs were attached to the project, and how much their bread was buttered with that project, to cave to the greens. The logical argument likely weighed much less.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> The Greens were all upset over LNG too.


That's kind of my point. The LNG projects would have done more to advance the green agenda that to thwart it, but their own obtuseness got in the way.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

gardner said:


> I think from a pure greenie perspective the difference is that the pipeline also implies the downstream risk of handling oil and the inherent implication that the oil will get used for something -- eg burnt or get made into plastic. The hydro proposition is at least a one-time f**-up of a watershed or something, but not too much additional downstream evil.
> 
> In the specific case of site-C, I think the NDP understood how many union jobs were attached to the project, and how much their bread was buttered with that project, to cave to the greens. The logical argument likely weighed much less.


Also the cost to cancel the site-c dam would have been 4 billion dollars. The NDP made the best decision they could make on this one.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

new dog said:


> ... Altared my thoughts were towards Canadians having a secure and reliable source of energy for the future if alternatives and technology aren't expected fill that void. It is also towards having less oil tanker traffic leaving the coast and lowering the environmental risks in the future.
> 
> I realize the costs are very high and refineries take years to build. My points above may not be enough to justify the cost. Around the world countries have spent far more on military to secure energy access or to protect their own.


The problem is Canada has already refined enough for this for years, where this info has been published for years. Without solving the regional transportation issues - building new refineries isn't going do much - unless they are built in the appropriate locations to stop importing foreign oil. 

Sure ... tanker traffic may be reduced or eliminated but refining more in Canada means other forms of transportation will need to be built or having their current loads increased. 


BTW ... it isn't just Canada that has trouble with refineries in certain areas of the country.
http://thechronicleherald.ca/metro/97307-imperial-oil-to-sell-refinery
http://www.noia.ca/News-Events/Toda...-buyer-for-Canadian-refinery-after-bet-fails/

Then there's also regional influences as I seem to recall an article outlining that due to politics, a clause was added to the sale of a Newfoundland refinery to ensure the new owners would not convert it to compete with what other refineries in the region produced.


Reducing a complicated situation down to the simple "Canada should refine more" while ignoring info that has been around for decades isn't all that helpful, IMO.


Cheers


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Thanks for the reply Electric and sorry my comment came out so badly, I know it is a very complicated situation. It also continues to be just that as the roadblocks are huge in almost every direction one turns when it comes to the oil sands.

On a positive note a poll in BC by Angus Reid found those in favour of the pipeline climbed to 54 percent and those against dropped to 38 percent. However when it came to container traffic many are still worried over a potential spill.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4151592/...tain-expansion-grows-amidst-pipeline-dispute/


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

In other news...60% dividend hike:
https://boereport.com/2018/04/18/kinder-morgan-increases-dividend-by-60-percent/


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Michael Campbell opens his show with a rant starting at the 34 minute mark against the uninformed anti-pipe crowd.

http://store.corusradio.com/audio-vault/avWidget/?s=cknwam&styleon=e31d24&styleoff=95a5a6

Put the audio vault time to 8am April 21 and advance to the 34 minute mark to listen to his commentary.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Thanks Dog. Certainly worth the time to listen.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

From the soon-to-be-ex-mayor of Vancouver: _Alberta’s oil and gas sector “represents such a tiny fraction of the overall economy and a job count,” whereas cities like Vancouver and Toronto are driven by newer technology and innovation-related sectors, he said._

Oops, he left out "the hyper-inflated housing and booming illegal mail-order pot sectors". 
As for pretending he understands the 'overall economy', that's what a BA in English and working for Tides will get you.

http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/kinder-morgan-pipeline-wont-get-built-vancouver-mayor-says#comments-area


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> From the soon-to-be-ex-mayor of Vancouver ...



wondering why the mayor is "soon-to-be-ex" though

is it that vancouver has by-laws prohibiting the re-election of a mayor who has already served for a number of years? has mayor robertson come to the end of his mandate & cannot run again?

otherwise i wouldn't be thinking that his ouster next fall will be a slam dunk

note that the article says opposition to the pipeline is concentrated in the cities of vancouver & victoria. It's too soon to tell definitely; but are we not picking up cries & whispers to the effect that a few more first nations are swinging towards pipeline endorsement.

there are already first nations fully on board with transMountain


.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

good to see first nations stepping up and showing their own initiative... if we could refine in alberta to medium crude maybe this would work

i like the idea of first nations blazing the trail and taking the heat and being the deciders as opposed to the “victims of the decision”

it remains a long shot

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...st-nations-led-pipeline-plan-more-than-a-big/


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Also highlights the divergent interests involved in any proposed resource development these days. 
Who'd have thought that a west coast band (Lax Kw'aalams) would be suing the Feds for trying to ban oil tankers off the northern BC coast. Crazy times.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

fatcat said:


> good to see first nations stepping up and showing their own initiative... if we could refine in alberta to medium crude maybe this would work
> 
> i like the idea of first nations blazing the trail and taking the heat and being the deciders as opposed to the “victims of the decision”
> 
> ...


There isn't a chance of Eagle Spirit being economic and there are no deep pockets that would front something of this magnitude. What the industry really needs is a massive 500kpd type 'resource industry' upgrader (with gov't incentives such as accelerated depreciation and GST rebate) that will upgrade dilbit to pipelineable crude. That would take the wind out of BC's arguments about shipping dilbit. Alas, it would take 5+ years to build and be disadvantaged by being caught up in the carbon tax itself (for the fuel it would use).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Also highlights the divergent interests involved in any proposed resource development these days ... Crazy times.




first nations as part owners of the pipeline look great on paper but have all thought the idea through.

ottawa will fund the first nations, of course - as the globe article makes clear, there was never any chance of eagle spirit being able to raise all the capital on its own.

but who will fund ottawa? look in the mirror. yea it's us.

i may not be be up to date but my understanding is that trudeau is already canvassing capital lenders in the US. Canadian taxpayers will be asked to pay out of the public purse as a last resort.

i'm not 100% clear "which" pipeline proposal trudeau is canvassing for, but i'm assuming it's the kinder morgan transMountain.

the Eagle Spirit venture mentioned in globe article is a totally separate operation. Oil tankers carrying alberta crude would sail from prince rupert BC, specifically from Lelu Island, which the lax qu'aalams claim as their hereditary homeland. Traditionally they have always been a west coast fishing nation. I imagine this is why their internal politics are intense & conflicted, ie now you may put the fish at risk with a deep-water energy terminal, now you may not, depending on who's in power within the indigenous group.


.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

we should all take heed as we read all the arguments about why this or that won’t go forward because this or that stakeholder has the ability to just shut it down ... whatever “it” is

the negative drag on the canadian economy will be significant and unmissable in coming years if every gdamn infrastructure project must drag through the federal government and 13 provinces and territories and 3000 first nation bands and countless non-governmental agencies and countless environmental groups (with their “social license” nonsense) not to mention local and regional governments

entropy will ultimately kill all these projects ... a general stink in the air

no one with actual capital and half a brain will get anywhere near this country ... kinder morgan wisely stuck their finger in the wind and found that the wind was blowing from every goddamn direction and that was no way to build a pipeline


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> ... no one with actual capital and half a brain will get anywhere near this country



each: they do have an alternative it's "Welcome to Georgia" BOOM


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> each: they do have an alternative it's "Welcome to Georgia" BOOM


oh yeah ... u know what i’m talking bout ... no rules no regulations ... thunderdome ! 

that is what i call ... capitalism ... but you be nice to those po-po’s pie or they gonna shoot you ... oh yes they will ..


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

He's still taling the talk anyway:

*Trudeau reaffirms commitment to Trans Mountain*... _Speaking at a funding announcement in Calgary, Trudeau reiterated how Trans Mountain is in Canada’s national interest and took specific aim at British Columbia’s attempts to thwart it. “It’s a question of a province actually challenging the federal government’s right and responsibility to get things done that are in the national interest, so I can tell you my government is doing and will continue to do everything necessary to defend federal jurisdiction and mostly, to get this pipeline built,” he said._

_Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said Notley and Trudeau have done a lot. “I want to see shovels in the ground, but every time someone says to me ‘they need to be doing more,’ I always say ‘what exactly?'” he said. “Is throwing Elizabeth May in jail enough for you? “We’ve heard unequivocal language from both the premier and the prime minister saying, this thing’s going to get built, there’s no waffling on that.”_

http://www.660news.com/2018/05/15/trudeau-reaffirms-commitment-trans-mountain-brushes-off-pointed-questions/


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

And:
_The Greater Vancouver Board of Trade is flying about 100 business, community and Indigenous leaders to Alberta this week in an effort to show that some British Columbians support the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion moving ahead.

Iain Black, president and CEO of the Greater Vancouver Board of Trade, says supporters of the pipeline project feel their voices are being drowned out by those who oppose the expansion. "Really, it's about supporting a positive relationship amongst all provinces in Canada. While certainly the Trans Mountain expansion project is a catalyst, this is so much more than just a single project or about a single project," Black told the Calgary Eyeopener Monday morning. "This is a chance to reinforce the current importance of this country's energy and resource sectors for the benefit of all Canadians."

His organization represents a range of industries, many of which are unrelated to energy. He said many of his members feel the resistance to Trans Mountain could spell diminishing confidence in Canada's economy and a downturn in investment. He's had so much interest in his effort that the board is reviewing applications for the trip in order to send a variety of people.

Black said his local municipal government is not receptive to business worries about investment chill. He said the mayor in Vancouver has "a very, very green agenda." "He's entitled to that agenda but it's not one that's been consistent with the business community," Black said. _[he's referring to Gregor 'Tides' Robertson here]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/vancouver-trade-board-kinder-morgan-trans-mountain-alberta-bc-1.4661903


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

this is good. Nenshi has the same answer many do for impatient parties who charge that trudeau is killing canada with inertia on transMountain. The fact is the PM has either to form a natinal accord or else risk breaking up the country imho.





OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi said Notley and Trudeau have done a lot.
> 
> “I want to see shovels in the ground, but every time someone says to me ‘they need to be doing more,’ I always say ‘what exactly?'” he [Nenshi] said. “Is throwing Elizabeth May in jail enough for you?
> 
> “We’ve heard unequivocal language from both the premier and the prime minister saying, this thing’s going to get built, there’s no waffling on that.”


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Sounds to me like Morneau may be trying to get in front of an announcement by KMCanada later today. I wouldn't be surprised if KMI has decided they have better places to spend their money, indemnification or not. Morneau wants to convince Canadians that the Feds were there in support and still are.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

there's a small detail i haven't been able to pick up
onlyMO do you happen to have this info? would appreciate if you could post the answer

Q: is kinder morgan planning to carry on existing operations out of burnaby terminal as they have been doing for the last umpteen years? i haven't heard that they are planning to sell existing ops.

in other words, is what's at stake just the bigger, brand-new KMI-2 pipeline which has yet to be built/converted from the existing pipe.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> there's a small detail i haven't been able to pick up
> onlyMO do you happen to have this info? would appreciate if you could post the answer
> 
> Q: is kinder morgan planning to carry on existing operations out of burnaby terminal as they have been doing for the last umpteen years? i haven't heard that they are planning to sell existing ops.
> ...


your paranoia is showing pie ... i have not heard a word about something like this ... it would be huge news indeed since a huge amount of product moves through the terminal ...

in any event someone else would buy it ... vancouverites will demand it when they see the price of their gasoline go to $10 a gallon at which point they will rightly think "what has the environment done for me lately ? [email protected]#k it !"

worry more about the trudeau government clown car which looks to be flailing away with thuggee bill morneau at the wheel, this latest fantasy notwithstanding ... indemnity is only half of the puzzle

the only way this thing will get built is by a show of strength and that is the one thing big-hair is incapable of because he is a weak narcissist who can't wait for the next photo op or to issue the next apology but is unwilling to face the hard issues

big-hair and this government need to make it clear that they will protect the construction of the pipeline and systematically arrest anyone who stands in front of it ... period

absent this kind of resolve, ... nothing ... will get done


----------



## twa2w (Mar 5, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> there's a small detail i haven't been able to pick up
> onlyMO do you happen to have this info? would appreciate if you could post the answer
> 
> Q: is kinder morgan planning to carry on existing operations out of burnaby terminal as they have been doing for the last umpteen years? i haven't heard that they are planning to sell existing ops.
> ...


KM has made no mention that I am aware of, of their future plans for the existing pipeline & terminal if the pipeline expansion does not proceed.( they state they will wind down any work on the new line by end of May)

I would assume they will carry on with the old pipeline/terminal after that, business as usual until... 

A) they decide operations in Canada are not worth the headaches, then put up for sale
B) sell to the province of Alberta/ gov of Canada once Trudeau gets things moving
C) rebuild team and restart work again once things are moving.
D) keep line running until uneconomic then shutdown or sell.
Or d, e, f etc.
Lots of potential ways they could proceed and they are not indicating any direction as they want to see what happens first.
If they shut down the expansion team, they may just say, it is over, not building the pipeline and that is the end of it.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

ouch ... john horgan basically calls morneau and trudeau his little bitches

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ttawa-and-alberta-over-kinder-morgan-pipeline

let’s see if big-hair has the balls to answer back ... i seriously doubt it


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

uh yes ... jason “the magnificent” kenney shows some serious moxie in confirming what we all know with regard to big-hair

he is indeed all-hair all-the-time

https://globalnews.ca/news/4213451/...ans-mountain-pipeline-trust-fund-millionaire/

too bad albertans have to pay the price for trudeau’s grotesque incompetence ...

i make tmi 3 to 1 against being twinned


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

Is Canada likely to buy the Kinder Morgan pipeline to ensure it gets built? It seems to be going around as this article suggests. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...full-trans-mountain-pipeline-project-jhr1as22


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the best news. Ottawa will buy KMI canada for $4.5 billion, wlll look to resell to other investors in the near future. 

in short ottawa is the steward of the property until BC settles down. Ottawa will be able to use its supreme court might to push the victoria BC politicians into line if necessary, in a legal pow-wow that no authority other than ottawa could possibly win. However ottawa does not intend to be the final permanent owner of the transMountain infrastructure.

who knows, once past the federal-supreme-court-vs-provincial-politics struggle, kinder morgan itself might be waiting in line to buy its project back. Such a development would mean that KMI is only "lending" its new pipeline project to the feds for the duration of this final crucial stage of full approval.

my takeaway: it's a great day for canada

PS suggestion for liz may, a few diehard coalition politicians in victoria, miscellaneous indigenous chiefs who don't yet see the advantages: Get Over It

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...o-buy-kinder-morgans-trans-mountain-pipeline/




.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree this is a good solution. Construction on the line can begin June 1 which is necessary to salvage this construction season. In the meantime, BC may ultimately lose its legal battles or get a response that limits their ability to obstruct, and/or Ottawa can afford to use brute force to run over Horgan. 

Worst case is Ottawa may have to use half-baked marine measures to move oil starting in 2020 and wait him out until he is defeated with a no confidence vote or through the polls in 2021. I have to think a few NDP members will decide to either cross the floor or be absent for a non-confidence vote that will come along by 2020. It will ultimately flow oil in 2020.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I think it's a waste of taxpayers money. The federal government should have taken action against anyone who stood in the way of KMI construction long ago. The rule of law. 

If anyone stands in the way, arrest them. Bring in the military if you have to. 

What has changed that the government now owns it - nothing other than mismanagement that will end up costing us twice as much.

The activists won. Haha, look what we did. Now they're emboldened. Put them in jail.

ltr


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

hats off to liberal transport minister Marc Garneau who has released canada's new Ocean Protection Plan just in time to ensure greater safety for the kinder morgan transMountain pipeline oil tankers that will carry alberta bitumen from burnaby terminal to asia & california

years in the making, the Ocean Protection Plan introduces numerous new shipping, sewage & harbour regulations that upgrade environmental security on canada's three ocean coasts - the atlantic, the arctic & the pacific.

the Plan pays special attention to new piloting regulations that will apply to kinder morgan's aframax oil tankers sailing out of vancouver/burnaby harbour, through the gulf straits of georgia & juan de fuca.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/oceans-protection-plan-1.4574451

https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-...en-as-part-of-the-oceans-protection-plan.html


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree, but I am disappointed it does not also say something about coastal municipalities that dump raw sewage into our coastal waters.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The government should maintain ownership and control. It could be operated as a profitable Crown corporation.

The pipeline will control the flow and it gives the government leverage to ensure the oil companies are complying with regulations.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have ridden ATVs down some of Ontario's pipelines right of ways. To journey from Alberta to BC would be epic, if possible.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

LOL, a true socialist that does not know how pipelines work. Pipeline operators are simply the transportation for other shippers who contract for space for product they own, or ship on an owner's behalf. They only have to meet certain specifications for the product that is shipped, e.g. solids content, vapour pressure, viscosity, density, water content, sulphur content, etc. It matters not where the product came from, i.e. which oil fields in which province owned by which company, etc, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The pipelines are not required to accept leases from anybody.

The government could refuse to lease space to oil companies that aren't fulfilling their obligations.

I recall some news awhile back of the opposite........companies refusing to sign long term leases with pipeline companies.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> I think it's a waste of taxpayers money. The federal government should have taken action against anyone who stood in the way of KMI construction long ago. The rule of law.
> 
> If anyone stands in the way, arrest them. Bring in the military if you have to.
> 
> ...




lol i knew it would be no time at all before the extreme right-wingers on here would start to complain about their taxes, their taxes, their taxes. It doesn't surprise that they're throwing in military aggression plus jail as well.

first the alt-rights wanted the pipeline & they said justin trudeau was a schmuck because he hadn't produced it

now they've got the pipeline & of course they're saying trudeau is a schmuck because he produced it

rachel notley says alberta needs the transMountain because - says notley - the pipeline is what's going to pay for all those desirable alberta social programs

the ROC says it's happy to pay $4.5 billion for alberta & the ROC welcomes the opportunity for canadian federal cooperation

the only unhappies are the alt-right alberta ******** who say they want their programs & the pipeline revenues but they won't hear of increased taxes. 

anyone who looks can see who the unhappies are. It's time to leave em behind.

.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Common carriers cannot discriminate against any shipper if the shipper contracts for and meets all the terms and conditions of the shipping contract, whether long term, such as 15-20 years, or short 30 day terms. Indeed, the NEB made sure 20% of the KM expansion space will be available on a 'spot' basis to shippers wanting space without long term contracts. Shipping product has nothing to do with the production of that product. Do you not understand that?

Sags, you really need to understand the business before making such assertions.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

fantastic .... apparently there is a wise owl living in our esteemed prime minister exquisite, perfect bouffant ... albeit not a very big owl wich is appropriate for a man with not a very big brain

nevertheless, i applaud the show of resolve and strength on the part of these Liberal geniuses

this pipeline is absolutely a must for the economic health of the country in so many ways

the insistence on a buyback right demonstrates the importance of the pipeline

now we get blackwater in here with very large truncheons and water-cannons and some knee-cappers and anyone who gets within like a mile of the operation will be "neutralized" ... outstanding

i do hope the above is unhinged enough to meet your exacting standards of right-wingery pie :tongue::satellite::05.18-flustered::excitement:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> I have ridden ATVs down some of Ontario's pipelines right of ways. To journey from Alberta to BC would be epic, if possible.




says here is a news item for your eyes only, since you're the only cmffer who'll be able to understand what i'm talking about.

it's a banner day for progress in canada. Not only does the country get the transMountain but today is also the day that our bravest cmffer pushes off to ride the TCAT from new brunswick to alaska on a motorcycle.

the TCAT is not the paved transCanada highway. It's not the well-established Trans Canada Trail. It's the Trans Canada Adventure Trail, an extreme far northern network of forest paths, rocky stream beds & some gravel roads when a motorcycle rider gets lucky.

in some places our intrepid is going to have to stop his bike & cut a path through virgin brush for himself with a little fold-up saw that he carries on board. In other places his Garmin might tell him that a nice wooden bridge crosses a river; but when he reaches the river he'll find out that a bad storm the previous week has washed out the bridge. This will mean that he will have to race across the river on the motorbike, hoping the water won't be deep enough to flood the engine.

(apparently adventures like the above are hugely desirable) (they are what make hardship challenges on the TCAT so alluring)

swamp, muskeg, northern pine forests. Isolation, solitude, no sign of human settlement for hundreds of km. He'll eat wild-caught fish, wild berries & plenty of KD cooked over an open fire. Bear spray. Mosquitoes the size of helicopters. A state-of-the-art waterproof hammock to sleep in. A rugged, well-planned military rescue communication system in case the bike goes down & he's injured. Two or 3 cameras (he's an artist as well as an adventure biker.)

a cross-canada northern wilderness motorcycle trip of this length - nearly 10,000 kilometres, six weeks - may be a canadian first, if not the very first to travel such a huge distance on the TCAT. Godspeed. 


.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Wow.......that is quite the trail. I may have traveled parts of it around Chalk River or Parry Sound and not even known it had a name.

It is stories like this that make me miss all those years with my family and buddies. My son became a competent fisherman, boater and ATV rider because of his exposure to the north.

Too old for the bumps and bruises now though. I may have to settle for golf carts in cottage resorts.

Can't help it..........I always loved the smell of coffee and gasoline in the morning...........LOL.

https://www.northernontario.travel/motorcycle-touring/three-days-on-the-tcat


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Wow.......that is quite the trail. I may have traveled parts of it around Chalk River or Parry Sound and not even known it had a name.
> 
> It is stories like this that make me miss all those years with my family and buddies. My son became a competent fisherman, boater and ATV rider because of his exposure to the north.
> 
> ...




your linked stories look like the real thing & you yourself probably were on the TCAT around chalk river & parry sound. I don't know about the west but in northern quebec & ontario most of the TCAT dirt/gravel road sections are logging roads or roads built by mining companies. In some places they are _pistes_ for winter off-the-road snowmobilers.

coffee ... the only luxury our intrepid seems to carry on his bike is a little Bialetti coffee pot plus a canister of ground espresso beans. 

sags i'll send you a pm w links. I don't know if he'll post contemporaneous photos as he goes. Often he accumulates pics & video footage, then when a trip is over he creates a bunch of documentaries & videos.


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I have ridden ATVs down some of Ontario's pipelines right of ways. To journey from Alberta to BC would be epic, if possible.


Many parts of it on crown land could be ATV-able, except for difficulties crossing rivers, muskeg and swamps. Fortunately, most of the ROW is close enough to the Yellowhead to be able to make detours. You won't be able to cross indigenous lands though without express permission, most likely not forthcoming.

The attached may be helpful in your planning https://www.transmountain.com/detailed-route Use Google Maps to zero in on specific landscape.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

I don't know why Morneau didn't wait until next week and then offer a discounted buyout price to KM?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kcowan said:


> I don't know why Morneau didn't wait until next week and then offer a discounted buyout price to KM?


Why would there be a discount? The existing pipeline operates just fine. KM would be letting contracts and people go next week on the expansion project. It would cost Morneau more next week.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> I agree, but I am disappointed it does not also say something about coastal municipalities that dump raw sewage into our coastal waters.


Yes good point! I can see them taking on Victoria but I suspect that Garneau is reluctant to take on Montreal...



AltaRed said:


> Why would there be a discount? The existing pipeline operates just fine. KM would be letting contracts and people go next week on the expansion project. It would cost Morneau more next week.


But have they not already spent $1 billion on the expansion?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> lol i knew it would be no time at all before the extreme right-wingers on here would start to complain about their taxes, their taxes, their taxes. It doesn't surprise that they're throwing in military aggression plus jail as well.


I don't really feel that the expectation of the government to enforce the law is a right wing extremist position. Are you saying only the extreme right expects this?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

kcowan said:


> But have they not already spent $1 billion on the expansion?


If Morneau is going to build the expansion, he is going to have to buy all that has been done to 'own' the product, e.g. NEB approvals, permits, ROW clearing, intellectual property, engineering design, etc. Or do it all over again. If he also waits until KM pays de-mobilization costs, he will have to pay re-mobilization costs, likely re-bidding contracts and purchase orders setting construction back until at least 2019. The point is... the very best price is today, allowing the 6 week or so hiatus to click back into gear by next week.

I've been associated with enough multi-billion dollar projects to know it is pretty much now.... or wait at least one year or two and start over.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

I don't see how our government can ride roughshod over opposition to the pipeline by indigenous people (and others). That does not sound like normal Liberal behavior. 

We live on Lake Ontario waterfront. I know how we would feel if a project was going to result in 28 oil tankers a month passing by our frontage (I think we have one small tanker every now and then!) That Burnaby inlet is already very congested and risks of accidents and spills will no doubt increase. If I lived there, I would strongly support those opposing the pipeline expansion.

What happened to our trans-Canada pipeline. That seemed to make more sense. Get the oil to our existing refineries. Reduce imports. Why so intent on increasing exports to Asia?

Kind of surprised Trudeau & Co did this. And not so sure it will pan out well for them (or us)

By the way, This G&M article is interesting and explains the impact of the project: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...s-mountain-pipeline-bc-coast/article35043172/


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> [re raw sewage in coastal waters] I can see them taking on Victoria but I suspect that Garneau is reluctant to take on Montreal




please allow me to post a few facts rather than distortions & falsehoods

montreal is not any kind of raw sewage problem. Montreal has operated modern waste treatment plants for decades. 

all of the city's sewage is treated in these facilities. In 2015 the city had to re-locate a snow-melt collector, which required draining its massive basin & connector pipes, once and once only. A decision was made to evacuate the storm water without treatment.

drainage was deliberately slow. It took a week. All waste water treatment plants continued to operate throughout. Untreated storm water flow was 13 litres per second, in a total municipal treated flow of 8000 litres per second, reported the globe & mail.

in other words, the untreated storm drainage was both minimal & controlled. Tests of the st-Lawrence river were run night & day. There was no downstream bacterial count.

many other cities in canada routinely pollute their lakes, rivers & coastal waters to an unacceptable extent. This table from the CBC shows that the worst provinces in 2015 with respect to raw sewage discharge were nova scotia, newfoundland/labrador, new brunswick & BC.

by contrast, raw sewage discharge in quebec, ontario & alberta was minimal, hovering around 1%. I am citing the year 2015 because it was the same year as montreal's one-week storm water dump, which did not materially affect the total sewage figures for quebec.

one has to wonder why a resident of BC - one of the worst sewage polluters - would want to throw stones out of glass houses at quebec, which is one of the least polluters.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sewage-pollution-wastewater-cities-1.3889072


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agent99 said:


> What happened to our trans-Canada pipeline. That seemed to make more sense. Get the oil to our existing refineries. Reduce imports. Why so intent on increasing exports to Asia?



the reason why not to "existing refineries" or "reduce imports" has been discussed in the forum, oh, at least 100 times. In the media, at least 10,000 times.

Energy East piped bitumen was going to the port of st John NB *for export by tanker ship to texas.*

to Valero refineries i believe. The same big Valero refineries that presently receive some alberta bitumen via the Keystone.

there are no refineries in eastern canada big enough to process bitumen into crude. While Energy East would have been exporting alberta oil to texas via st John, shell & esso would have been importing saudi light from east coast US pipelines for processing in montreal's smaller refineries, as always.

.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

humble_pie said:


> Energy East piped bitumen was going to the port of st John NB *for export by tanker ship to texas.*


*Project description* (Energy East Pipeline conversion)
The entire length would be 4,600 kilometres with approximately 70 percent being existing pipeline (3,000 kilometres) that would be converted from carrying natural gas to carrying diluted bitumen. Once completed, the pipeline *would provide feedstock to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City as well as Saint John.* The original project proposal included a marine oil export terminal in Cacouna, Quebec, but that configuration was abandoned due to the impact it would have on a beluga whale habitat.[4] The project would have a capacity of 1.1 million barrels (~200,000 tonnes) of crude oil per day.[5]

Irving Oil announced plans to build a new $300-million terminal at its Canaport facility in Saint John to export the oil delivered from the pipeline *and refined at its refinery.*


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

agent99 said:


> *Project description* (Energy East Pipeline conversion)
> The entire length would be 4,600 kilometres with approximately 70 percent being existing pipeline (3,000 kilometres) that would be converted from carrying natural gas to carrying diluted bitumen. Once completed, the pipeline *would provide feedstock to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City as well as Saint John.* The original project proposal included a marine oil export terminal in Cacouna, Quebec, but that configuration was abandoned due to the impact it would have on a beluga whale habitat.[4] The project would have a capacity of 1.1 million barrels (~200,000 tonnes) of crude oil per day.[5]
> 
> Irving Oil announced plans to build a new $300-million terminal at its Canaport facility in Saint John to export the oil delivered from the pipeline *and refined at its refinery.*


There is a reason why Wikipedia is not a real resource to be used. Take a look at the references 4 and 6 (5 is a dead link), none of them make reference to building refineries. They only discuss export terminals. In other words, whoever made those entries was making up facts.

Reference 4 http://business.financialpost.com/c...quebec-energy-east-terminal-because-of-whales
Reference 6 https://globalnews.ca/news/755010/irving-oil-to-build-new-terminal-for-energy-east-pipeline-project/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Agreed. The Irving refinery is not designed for heavy crudes. A massive investment would have to be made for hydrocracking and/or coking (most likely the former) to handle any more than a slipstream of heavy crude. The attractiveness in Energy East for the Irvings was the bigger and better export terminal. All refineries blend their sources of crude to maximize/optimize the capacity of their various processing units. A sophisticated 'linear program' tells the refinery what blends to use and what blends to buy.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

agent99 said:


> *Project description* (Energy East Pipeline conversion)
> The entire length would be 4,600 kilometres with approximately 70 percent being existing pipeline (3,000 kilometres) that would be converted from carrying natural gas to carrying diluted bitumen. Once completed, the pipeline *would provide feedstock to refineries in Montreal, Quebec City as well as Saint John.* The original project proposal included a marine oil export terminal in Cacouna, Quebec, but that configuration was abandoned due to the impact it would have on a beluga whale habitat.[4] The project would have a capacity of 1.1 million barrels (~200,000 tonnes) of crude oil per day.[5]
> 
> Irving Oil announced plans to build a new $300-million terminal at its Canaport facility in Saint John to export the oil delivered from the pipeline *and refined at its refinery.*




wondering if the above is taken word-for-word from TRP statements? 

i'm surprised to see lighthearted references to so many bitumen processing refineries in montreal, quebec city & st John NB. AFAIK none of these exist save & except for 1 irving refinery in st John that could be converted, theoretically speaking.

plus i'd always thought that Cacouna was to host a deepwater LNG terminal. Did never hear of marine oil.

PS if it was so easy to convert or build bitumen primary refineries - if a mere upgrade would do the job - don't you think that TRP would have got them built in alberta?

.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> PS if it was so easy to convert or build bitumen primary refineries - if a mere upgrade would do the job - don't you think that TRP would have got them built in alberta?


Pipelines have no interest in refineries. At most, they have interest in ethane extraction plants aka the ones at Empress, AB or Cochrane AB, where any liquids left in the natural gas stream is stripped off.

Refineries are hugely expensive and heavy oil refineries especially so. Indeed, a very expensive upgrader is required just to get dilbit to synthetic crude oil which can then go to a conventional refinery like Irving. There is not a chance of another refinery being built in Canada unless the government steps in as AB did with the Sturgeon Upgrader/Refinery...sort of. It's a pipsqueak of a refinery. http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/news/2017/12/14/sturgeon-refinery-produces-first-diesel.

Phase 2 doesn't look like it is going to go for now http://business.financialpost.com/c...-proposal-to-expand-sturgeon-refinery-for-now


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

^^


why not refine alberta tar sands heavy oil right here in canada, goes the argument. Preferably in alberta, people say. No need for pipelines, they add. Keep the jobs here, they go.

elizabeth may made the same mistake recently & it was discussed in the forum. So did numerous cmffers over the years. It's strange, how the issue keeps on reappearing.

alas refining dilbit is not like making lemonade. Dilbit has to be processed in specialized big refineries & these are located in the US or in Asia, not in canada.

the time to have thought of all this & done something about it was 20 years ago. Did alberta invest its sovereign wealth into big new refineries for tar sands oil, refineries that would have made it rich as norway? no, it did not.

did canada make that strategic investment? no, at that time canada believed an enhanced Keystone would do the job.

kudos to the cmffers like altaRed who are focusing on the future, who are not stagnating in the past. Focusing on how to get the work started, how to make canada's investment pay off in the end.


.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

the genius of the trudeau cabinet approach was the very slow & low-key progress towards building as much consensus as they could find for this wildly controversial project. So far, no particular group has been permanently alienated or even offended. The constitution has not even been touched, let alone shaken. My thinking is that consensus is in, although barely. It will grow with time, i believe.

john horgan has already said that if he loses BC's legal appeals, he will accept such a failure. He did not say he would resign but he did make clear that he will not oppose the court's decision.

with respect to the indigenous nations that still object to KMI, i'm thinking that the details of the financing might include the seeds of a partial first nation partnership. This will go a long way towards convincing indigenous leaders who still oppose that the pipeline is a healthy business enterprise they are welcome to join, where they can find employment & possibly even profit.

we should keep in mind that more than half of all indigenous stakeholders are firmly in favour of the KMI transMountain pipe. It's now a matter of bringing some or many of the others on board.


.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Pipelines have no interest in refineries.


This is no doubt true to some extent. But pipelines do require refineries as customers. If they can offer to deliver low grade "cheap" Alberta bitumen, it's just economics as to whether or not refiners will consider modifying existing or building new refineries to handle that heavy oil. Presumably refiners in Texas and Asia must have done that.

By the way, Doesn't Alberta still produce some higher grade crude? Is that moved to Ontario refineries at present? Or could it be with a partial Energy East pipeline


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

agent99 said:


> This is no doubt true to some extent. But pipelines do require refineries as customers. If they can offer to deliver low grade "cheap" Alberta bitumen, it's just economics as to whether or not refiners will consider modifying existing or building new refineries to handle that heavy oil. Presumable refiners in Texas and Asia must have done that.
> 
> By the way, Doesn't Alberta still produce some higher grade crude? Is that moved to Ontario refineries at present? Or could it be with a partial Energy East pipeline


Shippers on the pipelines (not pipelines) require customers that can refine dilbit/heavy crude and that is exactly what happens in PADD II in the Upper Midwest such as the Chicago area and PADD III in the US Gulf Coast for both Venezuelan and Canadian crude. Some of the larger refineries were converted (upgraded) over time in the last 30 years to refine heavy crude and a number of Alberta producers bought interests in such refineries in Illinois and Indiana over the past 10 or so years such as Husky and CNRL and Cenovus I believe to be sure their production has a home. 

All such refineries must be close to the vast fuels markets, not in the hinterland like Alberta to be competitively economic. IOW, the products of gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, heating oil have to be in relative proximity to their markets. And such refineries need to be large. The amount of refining capacity in the USA dwarfs anything Canada has except for perhaps Irving. https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/refcap17.pdf

Western Canada does not produce much light crude any more but what is produced is mostly refined in Canada in Alberta and Ontario. Much of it is out of the Bakken area. The remainder of Canada's light oil production is on the Grand Banks.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Further to AltaRed's comments, Alberta's current production split (month of March 2018) is about 14% conventional oil (2.4 million m3), and 84% oilsands (14.4 million m3). Another 2% is condensate production.
See page 3 of the pdf file: ST3- Alberta Energy Resource Industries Monthly Statistics , which is discussed at https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/data-and-reports/statistical-reports/st3
The industry is not opaque, there is an abundance of data freely available through government regulators. I think that is what has been so frustrating over the years when hearing uninformed claims or proposals wrt resource development.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Earlier I was trying to find all of Western Canada to include Bakken production as well. It can be seen in the NEB Excel chart here https://www.neb-one.gc.ca/nrg/sttstc/crdlndptrlmprdct/stt/stmtdprdctn-eng.html I believe ALL of SK's light oil production is from the Bakken. And all of NF's oil production is from the Grand Banks and that oil is sent by ice strengthened tanker to various east coast tidewater based refineries.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

agent99 said:


> This is no doubt true to some extent. But pipelines do require refineries as customers. If they can offer to deliver low grade "cheap" Alberta bitumen, it's just economics as to whether or not refiners will consider modifying existing or building new refineries to handle that heavy oil. Presumable refiners in Texas and Asia must have done that.
> 
> By the way, Doesn't Alberta still produce some higher grade crude? Is that moved to Ontario refineries at present? Or could it be with a partial Energy East pipeline


The light oil in Alberta gets mostly refined here in Alberta. Edmonton area has the largest refining capacity in the country at something like 420K BPD if you add them all up (and increasing).

Pipelines don't really care what they ship. Jet A, Diesel, Crude, Dilbit - there are minor differences in equipment and power requirements but once a pipeline is set up for it (like the existing TMP), it's no big deal. It's like a toll road. Whether its a fancy Mercedes or a 20yr old Pontiac sunfire, the toll is the same.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think Shell's Edmonton refinery that, with the Scotford upgrader, refines primarily (if not only) oilsands dilbit from the formerly Shell Muskeg Mine. Suncor (Petro-Canada) refines only Suncor's synthetic crude. Bottom line though is only a portion of Edmonton's refining capacity is for the last of AB's light crude production. http://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/projects/canadian-refineries.

With some exceptions* (based on geographic isolation or specialized products), it is only refineries that approach 200+ kpd of capacity that can be economically competitive on a North American scale. Many of the smaller ones in North America are closing as their economic lives come to an end.

I agree with Noblea that some of our pipelines are set up for 'batch' transportation. It is a complex web of tank farms, valving, etc. that ships particular product to specific places. Within the USA, there are pipelines specifically designed to be refined product pipelines, not crude oil pipelines. That is what makes it most efficient to have refineries located in the markets where the products are primarily used. Gasoline produced in Edmonton is not competitive with gasoline produced in Chicago, but gasoline produced in Edmonton is competitive in the amortized Trans Mountain line to serve the Vancouver area versus getting most of the Lower Mainland's needs from Washington State refineries. Cents per gallon differences in cost determine which product is produced or consumed where. Each situation is thus unique and is mostly a consequence of investment decisions make decades ago. Any infrastructure today faces huge economic (non-economic) hurdles against facilities amortized decades ago. Any new refineries built today have to be huge beasts built on tidewater to be competitive.

* Like Prince George, Moose Jaw, Lloydminster,

Added: Just look at the table here of the world's largest refineries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_refineries Numbers 8-12 are on the US Gulf Coast.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> All such *refineries must be close to the vast fuels markets,* not in the hinterland like Alberta to be competitively economic.


In the USA, this is not always the case. The Colonial pipeline for refined products would appear to be more extensive than the proposed Energy East pipeline.



> Colonial Pipeline, headquartered in Alpharetta, Georgia, "is the largest U.S. refined products pipeline system and can carry more than 3 million barrels of gasoline, diesel and jet fuel between the U.S. Gulf Coast and the New York Harbor area."[1] [clarification needed] The company was founded in 1961 and construction of the pipeline began in 1962..19–20 The pipeline is 5,500-miles (8,850-km) long.


The discussion here is interesting and we have at least one pipeline "expert"  However, a lot of the posts relate to what now exists and why we *can't* do certain things. Maybe we should rather discuss what we *can *perhaps do differently to capitalize on our resources. 

By the way, my first job was at an oil refinery. Crude was delivered directly to refinery by ocean tankers. I didn't stay there long and don't profess to have any knowledge of the current NA oil and pipeline industry. I did spend a lot of time in the Petrochemical industry and do have some knowledge on how plant sites were chosen. Often based on cost and availability of raw materials. Some feedstock came from distant locations by pipeline.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Yes, the Colonial pipeline is a key exception given its size (3 million barrels per day) and vintage (built in the 1960s), built specifically to serve densely populated markets in the US NE from Gulf Coast refineries. One must remember that in that period, the bulk of the US oil supply came from Texas and Oklahoma. I doubt that project, of national strategic importance at the time, would get built today because of ROW complexities and how inexpensive marine shipping has become. It would be cheaper to use big tankers to move product from the Gulf Coast to East Coast product terminals.

Regardless of a will to 'do' rather than can't do, there simply are no economics to change the production, pipelining, refining and distribution patterns that have been established and amortized over several past decades. It is only when major new sources of production come into being, e.g. the Bakken, that 'shorter' pipelines like the North Dakota Access Pipeline get built to serve because of economies of production. The same thing is now happening in the Midland shale play in Texas with a new pipeline being built to connect to other trunk lines and Gulf Coast refineries.

Lastly, there are a number of small geographically isolated refineries, e.g. Montana, Wyoming, Utah, etc. where it makes sense to refine products for local markets next to in-state oil production, rather than pipeline crude out to bigger centres and then ship products back. Those refineries will eke out an existence until they have to be decommissioned. No one is going to upgrade or build a new refinery in geographically isolated areas in the USA.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

AltaRed said:


> No one is going to upgrade or build a new refinery in geographically isolated areas in the USA.


or Canada!


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

kcowan said:


> or Canada!


Well, hopefully we will then soon get more windmills & electric cars 

Otherwise we need more creative thinking.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i wonder if i am huffing and puffing here because i see the tmp as having both huge practical importance to not only alberta but the whole country as it reflects on our capacity to bring our goods to market and sends a message to potential trading partners

but i think it has an even bigger symbolic importance with regards to resource extraction in general

this is now a cause-celebre here in bc for some first-nations and an immense raft of greenies who are going to pull out all the stops to shut this thing down and if they do, it will resonate for a long time and will hugely effect our energy sector

i am far from confident that the Liberals and their ski-instructor-in-chief can see this thing through


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> i wonder if i am huffing and puffing here because i see the tmp as having both huge practical importance to not only alberta but the whole country as it reflects on our capacity to bring our goods to market and sends a message to potential trading partners
> 
> but i think it has an even bigger symbolic importance with regards to resource extraction in general
> 
> ...




totally predictible

when the transMountain was failing they insisted it was destroying canada's rep & they wanted the project to win

now that it's winning they insist it's destroying canada's rep & they want the project to fail


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> totally predictible
> 
> when the transMountain was failing they insisted it was destroying canada's rep & they wanted the project to win
> 
> now that it's winning they insist it's destroying canada's rep & they want the project to fail


that post has passed right over my head ... explain a bit more pie


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

agent99 said:


> Well, hopefully we will then soon get more windmills & electric cars
> Otherwise we need more creative thinking.


Here, wish granted:
View attachment 18804


Now go fly a kite. But not in my back yard of course.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

agent99 said:


> ... The discussion here is interesting and we have at least one pipeline "expert"  However, a lot of the posts relate to what now exists and why we *can't* do certain things. Maybe we should rather discuss what we *can *perhaps do differently to capitalize on our resources ...


Sure ... you go first ... what is the best thing to do and what is the business case that going to provide the money needed?

One thing we can do is to pay attention to what is going on and what exists so that comments pulled out of thin air that bear no resemblance to what is happening can be avoided.
An example is the oft repeated "Canada should build more refineries to become self-sufficient in gasoline production" (more than is used is already refined, reported for years).




agent99 said:


> ... By the way, my first job was at an oil refinery ... I did spend a lot of time in the Petrochemical industry and do have some knowledge on how plant sites were chosen. Often based on cost and availability of raw materials. Some feedstock came from distant locations by pipeline.


So then you know that in a global setup - the cost is a bigger question than just Canada, right?





agent99 said:


> ... Otherwise we need more creative thinking ...


I don't follow how you can have experience in the PetroChemical business yet seem to think that creative thinking is the only requirement. 
Unless you have some creative thoughts have have really low costs?


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> One thing we can do is to pay attention to what is going on and what exists



yes exactly. The transMountain pipeline is such a long-drawn-out, fraught & fractious issue that just hearing the federal response is a huge step forward.

cmf forum is lucky because we all have ringside seats to hear altaRed, an expert industry veteran who has championed the transMountain in a reasoned low-key kind of way, ever since he joined the forum. Now it's all coming true.

here is a pollyanna-ish view through rose-coloured glasses; but i see the federal commitment as an opportunity to bind the country & even heal some wounds. Just about anybody from anywhere can get behind this project eventually.

i'm sure it's going to cost a lot more than 4.5 billion & there is environmental risk. But there are existing markets waiting for product this very minute & there's also risk of death if some ingredient in your toothpaste goes wrong. Me i think it's a great day.


.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Eclectic12 said:


> I don't follow how you can have experience in the PetroChemical business yet seem to think that creative thinking is the only requirement.
> 
> Cheers


I don't think I said it was the* only* requirement. But it is better than looking in mirror when trying to move forward.

From what I recall, there is close to a balance in Canada between imports and exports of refined petroleum products. Perhaps we export just a little more than we import. So, why wouldn't we want more capacity so we could double or triple those exports? We have cheap feedstocks. If the price was right buyers would be at our doorsteps. 

If the current pipeline initiatives fail again, our heavy oil will be worth even less. So we leave it in the ground, give it away at a loss OR figure a way of adding value to it and selling a different product that can be more safely transported.

At one time, nobody knew how to extract oil from the tarsands. I recall a VP of our company asking us young engineers back in 60s how we thought it might be done efficiently . Some smart people eventually figured it out. Now we need some smart people to figure out how to capitalize on the resource and extract it cleanly enough to satisfy the environmentalists. Not a bunch of naysayers.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i suspect it will come down to some kind of very large guarantee of money for any possible spill cleanup ... which will be backstopped by ottawa and that might get it through


----------



## can_84 (Jul 2, 2011)

or state hand out


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Fed court quashes construction and permit of the TMXL.
KMI shareholders vote overwhelmingly to sell.

So now the govt is the proud owner of a pipeline expansion they can't build.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Fed court quashes construction and permit of the TMXL.
> KMI shareholders vote overwhelmingly to sell.
> 
> So now the govt is the proud owner of a pipeline expansion they can't build.


Wrong actually. They will be (when it closes) the owner of an existing pipeline that is highly profitable, and hopefully an owner of an expansion that may take longer to build yet again. The existing pipeline is highly marketable when/if the expansion either goes, or dies.... either way.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It is embarrassing that Canada seems closed for business. Nothing gets done and multi national corporations are investing else where. I'm sure the pipe gets built but what company will be willing to invest in this inbred dysfunctional country?


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Wrong actually. They will be (when it closes) the owner of an existing pipeline that is highly profitable, and hopefully an owner of an expansion that may take longer to build yet again. The existing pipeline is highly marketable when/if the expansion either goes, or dies.... either way.


Yes I know that. I used to work for Trans Mountain. If they just bought the existing pipeline, the price would've been lower.
Energy stocks taking a hit because of this.

Certainly doesn't look good optically for investment here.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Yes I know that. I used to work for Trans Mountain. If they just bought the existing pipeline, the price would've been lower.
> Energy stocks taking a hit because of this.
> 
> Certainly doesn't look good optically for investment here.


Not much lower. They did pick up costs to date on the expansion, but that is a small part of the $5.4B. It is wrong to say they paid $5.4B for the expansion....that alone is another $7B or more yet to be spent. 

Stands to reason for oil stocks to take a hit, along with some other AB related stocks. It's a tough day for the business environment in Canada and our GDP growth near term. 

They will eventually get it sorted out and the expansion built...but it looks like a long road ahead.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

AltaRed said:


> They will eventually get it sorted out and the expansion built.


I feel myself growing increasingly skeptical that there really is any hope. Things will likely be paralyzed for a decade.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

gardner said:


> I feel myself growing increasingly skeptical that there really is any hope. Things will likely be paralyzed for a decade.


Perhaps but I think too much has already been invested to simply throw that away and come back in a decade. Pipe is sitting on rail cars already and who knows what else has been pre-ordered (which by the way is standard practice once a project has been sanctioned by a project proponent).


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

According to my kid the judge was the same one that ruled against Northern Gateway. 
Supreme court will over rule this stupidity but in the mean time it costs money, even our own companies are loath to commit money to future projects.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Never mind all that ...how do I make a buck off this....?


----------



## condor (Jun 15, 2014)

First off...i commend all on this forum who had the foresight...knowledge...tenacity to master the skill of making and watching their fortunes grow. But in the same frame of mind i see a group of people who have replaced good old common sense with dollar signs$$$$$$. I have read each and every post....everybody adding links based on the fortunes of Kinder Morgan to further their train of thought. With the exception of a very small number of posts...most cant see the forest for the trees in the way.
Gentleman....the ...GOLDEN GOOSE...has left the building....gone are the days forever...like the WAC Bennet dam at Hudson Hope BC....i worked on that project. In todays lunacy climate...it would have never been built...neither the great rail connection....nor the higway from coast to coast. Incomprehensible ever to see Alaskan Highway built to counter potential Jap invasion.
Point is....nothing...nothing at all....EVER....will be started to extract oil or minerals again...us oldies have see those days...never to see them again. There was a tipping point in our past history of development that there was equilibrium....balance the extraction with rules..guidelines that were required. The decline of Canada lies at the door of the Supreme Court Of Canada.....and our famous Charter of Rights. We know have so many rights...Canada cant build or do anything...as everyone has rights...rights there...rights everywhere. Canada has now transitioned from keepers of the kingdom to weepers of this once proud resource based economy. With indians now having the political correct veto power in this vast land....i challenge any company to even build a peanut factory.I see the .......indian industry...it feeds off the labour of all working Canadians and always will. Beig in a perpetual state of victimhood reaps more rewards that taking responsibility for their actions and life

Trudeau created these Frankenstins...let him deal with them.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Wrong actually. They will be (when it closes) the owner of an existing pipeline that is highly profitable, and hopefully an owner of an expansion that may take longer to build yet again. The existing pipeline is highly marketable when/if the expansion either goes, or dies.... either way.




thankx altaRed for these wise words. Counting on you as the resident energy expert to provide impartial commentary across the weeks to follow. It'll be a good thing you'll be doing for the whole of canada, there's a dire need for impartial experts on this issue.

my impression is that ottawa will immediately take up consultation with the opposing first nations. I glimpsed one video on Huff post already. The chief was orating about mystical love for the land & the water but in the midst of all the spirituality he made one tiny slip. He referred to "millions." In the context it appeared to mean millions of dollars.

was it blackmail? we shall see


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Seems every talking head I heard got it wrong today on what the $4.5B or whatever actually bought (existing pipeline plus pre-development expenses for the expansion). Don't know where they get these airhead media types. I thought Rachael Notley did a good job in her news conference. She did the best she could to articulate AB's position which puts Ottawa on notice to get with program as soon as possible but at the same time giving JT room and a reason to recall parliament et al to make some things happen. C'est la vie. We will still be talking about this 6-12 months from now.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

on the positive side of things, discussions in cmf forum in recent months have shown that some dilbit is actually reaching tidewater already.

the kinder morgan extension east of vancouver diverts some oil from existing transMountain to ferndale & anacortes in washington state. I don't know if that oil includes dilbit. Map doesn't show whether those are refineries at ferndale/anacortes or whether those are shipping terminals that export the oil by tanker.

on the atlantic side of the continent, some dilbit is presently reaching levis, quebec on the lower st-lawrence via the enbridge/valero pipeline. All such dilbit is processed in valero's jean-gaulin refinery at levis, none is exported as dilbit. Levis/quebec city does have saltwater tides, so one can say that some dilbit is reaching tidewater on the east coast!


vancouver/burnaby harbour must be one of the worst places in the world to situate an international maritime port. It's much too far inland. Too much nearby city. Too many overhead bridges. Harbour is too shallow.

its location does make sense from a historical perspective, though. What is now vancouver/burnaby harbour was probably a first nation trading centre for a thousand years or more, during a pre-white-man era when its very inland remoteness, shelter from the ocean & difficulty in reaching the location by canoe meant significant safety.

when checking the history of vancouver/burnaby harbour recently, i read that the 19th century brand-new province of BC bargained hard for the planned CPR transcontinental railway to be extended to vancouver. Evidently BC said the new rail line must go to vancouver or else no railway to the BC coast. Of course there were no airplanes at that time, nor were there any giant ocean-going vessels; so the remote interior safety of vancouver harbour still meant security to the BC founding fathers.

nowadays the same remote interior location of the harbour means nothing to military defense; but it sure is one big liability when it comes to international shipping.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There are only 3 bridges (2 road, 1 rail) between the TM terminal and open sea, though I agree the KM terminal it is inland by quite a ways.

Those WA refineries at Ferndale, Anacortes and Cherry Point are truly refineries, total capacity exceeding 600,000 bbls/day served by Kinder Morgan and elsewhere including incoming tanker traffic from, for example Alaska. They make gasoline, jet fuel, etc., some of which ends up back in Vancouver.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> the kinder morgan extension east of vancouver diverts some oil from existing transMountain to ferndale & anacortes in washington state. I don't know if that oil includes dilbit. Map doesn't show whether those are refineries at ferndale/anacortes or whether those are shipping terminals that export the oil by tanker.
> 
> on the atlantic side of the continent, some dilbit is presently reaching levis, quebec on the lower st-lawrence via the enbridge/valero pipeline. All such dilbit is processed in valero's jean-gaulin refinery at levis, none is exported as dilbit. Levis/quebec city does have saltwater tides, so one can say that some dilbit is reaching tidewater on the east coast!
> 
> vancouver/burnaby harbour must be one of the worst places in the world to situate an international maritime port. It's much too far inland. Too much nearby city. Too many overhead bridges. Harbour is too shallow.


I will defer to our resident expert but my understanding is that no dilbit is in pipe today. The expansion will add dilbit capacity but I think the existing pipeline will continue to ship crude to the refineries as noted. The energy east pipeline was a proposal to switch an NG pipeline over to dilbit. Keystone XL would ship dilbit for refining in Texas and most likely exporting the resulting product. That works well except for the price. Hence the desire to reach tidewater with its world market price.

The tankers in the Burrard Inlet would all be piloted by BC trained and employed pilots. Just like they do today. BC does not trust international pilots to guide their ships through the first narrows, one of the most treacherous stretches. In addition to the narrow passage, the Capilano River flow pushes the ships off course during rainy weather. And the tidal flow cause standing waves called skookumchuck. twice a day I watch all this from my patio.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> I will defer to our resident expert but my understanding is that no dilbit is in pipe today ...



hey kcowan thankx for all the great info re vancouver harbour

but on dilbit, our resident expert was the key poster in a recent thread that showed that dilbit is currently being piped by enbridge to its montreal terminals. The customers are the single refinery in Montreal East that presently belongs to suncor & also the new pipeline/aframax tanker combo that carries dilbit to the valero refinery at levis on the lower st-lawrence, opposiite quebec city.

the valero pipeline was inaugurated in december 2015. In prior years, valero had been collecting some dilbit from the enbridge terminal in montreal east & shuttling this special petroleum derivative to their refinery in levis via a pair of aframax tankers, which valero still owns & uses to this day.

in that other thread, our resident expert was helpful in explaining that the proportion of dilbit that can be mixed & used by those 2 quebec refineries is limited. The 2 are not dedicated dilbit refineries, they are processing a mixture.

the fact that dilbit was approved to flow in quebec, is flowing in quebec right now, shows that the province is *not* intransigent about the dilbit product. In that other thread, i raised the question of what it was about enbridge & valero that allowed them both to succeed with dilbit pipelines into & out of montreal; while transCanada Pipe failed with energy east.

altaRed our RE had some suggestions. I made other suggestions, mostly pointing to a long & favourable history in quebec that valero enjoys from its base at levis.

i was not close to the energy east story so i do not know what TRP might have done to lower its chances of not getting along in eastern canada. You will remember that there was also massive opposition to energy east from indigenous communities all across canada. 

today with transMountain we are witnessing yet another chapter of delay that is being caused by first nation rights. The same objections would have been raised to energy east by indigenous communities along its route, except that transCanada pipe cancelled early.

.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> hey kcowan thankx for all the great info re vancouver harbour
> 
> but on dilbit, our resident expert was the key poster in a recent thread that showed that dilbit is currently being piped by enbridge to its montreal terminals. .


I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any measure. That aside, Keith was talking about TransMountain's existing line today. It is licensed for dilbit but I don't know how much it currently ships and to where it goes, i.e. WA State or export by tanker?
https://www.transmountain.com/product


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> I wouldn't consider myself an expert by any measure.



if not the term "expert" then we must say that you are amazingly knowledgeable. This forum has been treated all these years to continuous commentary from a highly-informed & experienced insider, namely yourself, on the state of canada's energy industry at a very crucial moment in its history. What a treat it has been.

re kcowan though, i read his paragraph as mentioning that no dilbit is in pipe anywhere, since he also discusses energy east in the same paragraph.

obviously the amount of dilbit that can be siphoned off to anacortes, enbridge, suncor in montreal east & valero in levis is only a drop in the bucket. Real export pipe is needed. But still, a wee approved drap is a wee bonnie first drap, no? here's t' th' lads & th' lassies ...


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Bottom line is we need substantial new dilbit export capacity at tidewater, whether that be Atlantic or Pacific coasts to diversify our markets. Tinkering with existing lines doesn't do it, no matter how much dilbit might be able to be shipped via existing TM or east of Ontario. It's truly a shame and an embarrassment how dysfunctional our country has become.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

This chart shows that dilbit represents only 2% of the oil refined east of Ontario. And I believe that the number is low because it is mixed with regular crude for refining.

Diluted bitumen (dilbit) by region

A pipeline of dilbit would need new refineries.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Eder said:


> According to my kid the judge was the same one that ruled against Northern Gateway.
> Supreme court will over rule this stupidity but in the mean time it costs money, even our own companies are loath to commit money to future projects.


It was a Federal Court of Appeal decision - 3 judges - concurring.

Agree and hope SCC would overturn this.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

no comment


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Well that's it folks I'm done with Canada in terms of any and all investments. Is about a 50/50 split in CAD/USD equity mix and will whittle that CAD portion to nothing over the next year. This country cannot accomplish anything it seems. I"m just small potatoes with my $1.3 Million dollars but you hear this all the time on BNN about fund managers taking their investments elsewhere....clearly the TSX crappy returns the past decade bear this out. I would be much better off financially if I ignored Canada from Day 1.

I'll stick with my CAD allocation re: fixed income as I think it's important to have a decent portion of investable assets in home currency.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

kcowan said:


> This chart shows that dilbit represents only 2% of the oil refined east of Ontario. And I believe that the number is low because it is mixed with regular crude for refining.



yes, altaRed explained all that in another very interesting thread in which a number of facts were discovered, namely that dilbit is being piped into & used by the only 2 refineries in quebec, undoubtedly in smaller quantities because it is being mixed with other feedstocks.

the point is that those 2 pipelines - one is the enbridge modification, the other is a short new pipeline from montreal to levis, quebec - were recently permitted by the quebec gummint with no fanfare whatsoever & only very limited public opposition to enbridge. There was zero opposition to valero/levis' new pipe afaik.

the question then becomes: What were those companies - enbridge, suncor, valero - able to accomplish that transCanada pipe was unable to do with energy east? if energy east is ever revived, this question will have to be studied.

.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

My granddaughter had a farm market for the food they grew at school last year and today I found out the proceeds went to fight the pipeline.

I like the idea of it going to charity but it shouldn't go to something political like this. There may be kids in the classroom that have family that depend on work from the pipeline who may not want money going to such a cause. The best thing to do if you don't know who to give the money to, is to just give it to Children's hospital.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> if energy east is ever revived, this question will have to be studied..


It was already studied extensively before Energy East was ever proposed.


----------

