# TRP - TC Energy Corporation



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

*TRP*

Does anybody know the reason for the nice pop in Transcanada today?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I would think its the herd believing TRP is worth some $2,553,980,000 more today than yesterday. Efficient market theory and all that lol.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Yeah, a bit funny for sure. 

TRP up about 5% and ENB up about 4%.

Someone must know something about pipelines that I haven't read in the news.

ltr


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

Yes, PPL and IPL aren’t too shabby either!:tongue:


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

I always find situations like that fascinating. 

It shows how far out of the real picture the regular investor really is.

Insiders move an entire sector and we just get to sit and watch.

ltr


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

like_to_retire said:


> I always find situations like that fascinating.
> 
> It shows how far out of the real picture the regular investor really is.
> 
> ...


interesting. nice bounces. who knew!
I tried to find the skinny on why - but no success.
IPL, another pipeline, didn't do anything. so I don't know why ENB & TRP would go up, but not IPL.


----------



## Mike-RetireEarly (Feb 28, 2016)

US taxes were the reason for the pop, Globe and Mail has a article: “Shares of TransCanada and Enbridge rose Thursday after U.S. energy regulators blunted possible negative tax effects for the owners of U.S. pipelines.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/inv...enbridge-surged-thursday-heres-why/?cmpid=rss


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

TC Energy selling three natural gas power plants to Ontario Power Generation. Source: Globe & Mail this evening. Opinions on how this is likely to effect the stock price if at all?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Likely negligible to slightly positive TC asset base is too large for this to move the needle.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Thankyou.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

They do seem to be offloading a number of assets. The recent Canadian sale of $2.87B, sale of gas systems in USA $1.7B and a pipeline in Alberta for $1.15B and one other. Over $6Billion, I believe. About 9% of number for Property, plant and equipment in balance sheet if all those are C$ (Probably not) , so quite significant if numbers are correct.

Report I read said that they needed capital for other projects in their "pipeline". Not a bad thing if they are investing in projects they think will be more profitable.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

In total, that is significant but not on an individual deal basis. I'd have to look at the TC website, but my take is TC may be busy investing in southern pipelines?


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> In total, that is significant but not on an individual deal basis. I'd have to look at the TC website, but my take is TC may be busy investing in southern pipelines?


This article has a bit more info:
https://thestarphoenix.com/commodit...tion/wcm/bcada3a4-2c05-42ca-b155-e42ffa430657

For example:


> TC Energy now says it will sell off a total of $6.3 billion worth of assets in 2019 and use that cash to fund its growth program and “further strengthen its financial position.” The company had $35.8 billion in long-term debt at the end of the first quarter.





> Still, he said the company would be using the funds to pay for “near-term” capital projects, which include the construction of the Coastal GasLink Pipeline, connecting gas production in British Columbia with the $40-billion LNG Canada project in Kitimat, B.C.


Long term hold for us in taxable account.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TC is up something like 33% year to date and recently hit an all-time high. The company is doing well selling legacy assets and investing in new projects with higher returns on equity. As a result their payout ratio is very solid and relatively low ~40-42% (many mid-streamers at 60% or more).


----------



## SixesAndSevens (Dec 4, 2009)

a very long term hold for me....i hope they are reinvesting the proceeds in projects in other countries like Mexico and further in South America...there is no growth in this sector in the Canadian market and the US will never let any Canadian company build energy infrastructure in the US...so the only growth area is Mexico and further south


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Why not just go to the TC Energy website and look at https://www.tcenergy.com/globalassets/pdfs/investors/events/2019/tc-2019-agm-presentation.pdf


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Hallelujah! 
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/nebraska-court-keystone-xl-approval-1.5257372


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Only the Montana hurdle left.... absent civil disobedience aka DAPP style which may well manifest itself. TRP better start laying pipe Spring of 2020 and get spreads done in both Montana and Nebraska to be sure.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tc-energy-to-sell-65-stake-in-coastal-gaslink-to-kkr-aimco-1.1366943


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

newfoundlander61 said:


> https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/tc-energy-to-sell-65-stake-in-coastal-gaslink-to-kkr-aimco-1.1366943


Plus potentially another 10% stake to First Nations entities. TC must believe it needs to reduce its exposure to having 2 pipeline projects at one time, i.e. Keystone XL and Coastal GasLink. Probably a sound decision given the sad state of pipeline project uncertainty these days.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Another vote with their feet move.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> Another vote with their feet move.


It does reduce major pipeline exposure but not so sure this is a 'vote with their feet' move. From https://www.tcenergy.com/siteassets/pdfs/investors/events/2019/tc-2019-investor-day-presentation.pdf there seems to be a broad range of opportunities in both US and Canada. Despite the USA has 10 times the population and GDP of Canada, project opportunities do not seem to be skewed 90/10.

As a shareholder, I want TC Energy to focus on the most profitable and rewarding opportunities, and I still get the benefit of the DTC from a Canadian multi-national.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TRP has been a rock star. Closed at a new all time high; has been hitting all time highs since May 2019. And to think I got shares back at $54 just in February. Although ACB is about $47. They have a massive array of projects and so can be choosy about where they invest their capital.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

doctrine said:


> TRP has been a rock star.


so true. 
Investors get an additonal 8-10% annual dividend increase through to 2021 as well. 
From Morningstar "Despite the strong outlook for the company's business, we think most of the stock's upside has been realized by the market this year, leaving modest upside in this 3-star name. However, the stock is yielding 4.6% at current levels, and we expect TC Energy to increase its dividend 8%-10% annually over the next five years" TRP also has some nice growth projects happening "TC Energy also announced its newest growth project, the West Path Delivery Program. The new project is a CAD 1.2 billion expansion of its NGTL and Foothills gas pipelines and will connect with the GTN Xpress Project." 
I recall reading that this is the first year that the US exported oil/gas. 
2020 will be an interesting ride.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A 10 year chart shows TRP to be 'on trend'. The late 2015 and late 2018 swoons make it look more volatile than it is. Emphasizes the need to have patience and to stay the course.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I had wanted to start a position in TRP for years but always found the price too high. It wasn't overpriced I just like to find bargains. I am quite content with my initial position started in December of 2018 in the $51 range and 35% return in one year. I don't expect the same return in future years but would be content with modest share price appreciation and the expected dividend increases. Would by more on a pullback.

Cheers


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

doctrine said:


> TRP has been a rock star.
> 
> Not always. I bought on margin *Dec. 29th, 1999* @12.40 sh and continue to hold. Earlier that month they had just announced a big div cut down to .80, along with layoffs of about 1/3 of their work force.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Did TC Energy ever actually sell their stake in this pipeline?

"B.C.’s Supreme court rules for $6.6-billion Coastal GasLink pipeline, against Indigenous law."

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Try this.... https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/coastal-gaslink-1.5408841


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Yes ... I'm still happily holding, though my buy was for $10 a share.
IIRC, I also used the leveraged capital split share to make 150% in about a year or so.

I didn't have a margin account, much credit or a large income at the time.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Not sure why two threads on TRP are needed.


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure why two threads on TRP are needed.
> 
> 
> Cheers


There never is a need for duplicate threads. Moderators don't seem inclined to merge them though.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

Eclectic12 said:


> Not sure why two threads on TRP are needed.
> 
> 
> Cheers


If they would fix the search feature so you could easily find a thread on a topic, then all would be fine. As it is, you simply search and search manually until you find a thread that is even remotely close and post to that thread. Frustrating, this forum is....................

ltr


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You can do very effective searches of CMF using google. Open a new google search window and try this:

*TRP site:canadianmoneyforum.com*

The key thing is that second part with the site: part. You can search for arbitrary strings and this will locate them within CMF. I use it almost every day.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> If they would fix the search feature so you could easily find a thread on a topic, then all would be fine. As it is, you simply search and search manually until you find a thread that is even remotely close and post to that thread. Frustrating, this forum is....................


Try this technique: https://www.canadianmoneyforum.com/...earch-Issues?p=2062832&viewfull=1#post2062832


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> You can do very effective searches of CMF using google. Open a new google search window and try this:
> 
> *TRP site:canadianmoneyforum.com*
> 
> The key thing is that second part with the site: part. You can search for arbitrary strings and this will locate them within CMF. I use it almost every day.


But you can't use that to drill down to a particular member, either yourself or someone else, so it's just a random search blanket search. It's Advanced search that's required.

How's this for a novel idea. CMF fixes the search function to operate just like every other forum in the world?

ltr


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I agree the search function is actually dysfunctional.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

like_to_retire said:


> Did TC Energy ever actually sell their stake in this pipeline?



i don't see that TC Energy sold out of Coastal Gas. instead it took on 2 capital partners, one of them being heavyweight KKR, formerly Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, one of the largest private investment firms in the US, hence in the world.

the KKR connection will open new US doors for TRP. Keystone XL could fly.

the venerable US private banker already has a close canadian connection. Founding partner Henry Kravis married canadian economist Marie-Josee Drouin, back in the day when male journalists could openly gush over Drouin's drop-dead good looks & what one scribe glowingly referred to as her "bee-stung lips."

the power couple is still together in NY City & sits on the boards of major hospitals, museums & cultural centres in gotham. Plus a soft spot for canada.

TC Energy sold 65% of coastal gas to KKR & alberta's AIMCo, appearing to retain a slight controlling majority. AIMCo is a nod to the local hometown connection, nothing more. The real heavyweight lifter in raising the capital required to build the new gas pipeline will be KKR.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

humble_pie said:


> i don't see that TC Energy sold out of Coastal Gas. instead it took on 2 capital partners, one of them being heavyweight KKR, formerly Kohlberg, Kravis, Roberts, one of the largest private investment firms in the US, hence in the world..


Humble, thanks for the insight into this situation.

ltr


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

like_to_retire said:


> Eclectic12 said:
> 
> 
> > Not sure why two threads on TRP are needed.
> ...


Not sure search was all that critical as IIRC, both threads were on the first page ... but yes, a search that returns info more than rarely or that doesn't require a ton of searches before returning info would be nice. :rolleyes2:


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> You can do very effective searches of CMF using google. Open a new google search window and try this:
> 
> *TRP site:canadianmoneyforum.com*
> 
> The key thing is that second part with the site: part. You can search for arbitrary strings and this will locate them within CMF. I use it almost every day.


Question is ... if the forum search is going to return nothing for five or six tries of "TRP" when it should be searching the sub-topic - why bother leaving it on the page to waste people's time?


It's nice know that some search capabilities what other forums provide can be used *by leaving* the forum but it seems .... oh, so 1990's or earlier.

Is it really that difficult or costly to have the first search return some data?


Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

One has to use Advanced Search to start with. But this is pretty lame forum software.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Advanced seems to respond a bit quicker ... but has also return zero results.

Personally - I'd prefer both searches were removed as they have been so useless for so long.



Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Useless forum software is what it is. Poor choice for a number of reasons.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

What I don't understand is how I can visit some obscure, low participation forum, and their software and search capabilities are top notch.

Of the multitude of forums that I am a member, and including every other random forum I have visited in my lifetime, I would rate CMF as the absolute worst.

Why is that?

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Poor choice of software.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Poor choice of software.


This is obvious. It's the lack of recognition of that fact that is mind boggling.

ltr


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

like_to_retire said:


> This is obvious. It's the lack of recognition of that fact that is mind boggling.
> 
> ltr


Be careful what you wish for. CANADIANMONEYFORUM.COM is owned and operated by VerticalScope Inc. of Toronto, You should see the mess they have made of some other forums when they "upgraded" forum software.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

in 2015 vertical scope sold 56% to Torstar. Other reports at the time put the controlling interest percentage that was sold much higher. The VS founder/owner resumably retired.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

TRP seems to be weathering this one. Do we imagine that the company will prevail before the construction season gets too much under way?



https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-xl-montana-ruling-1.5533863





> Native American tribes and environmental groups pressured a U.S. federal judge on Thursday to shut down work on the disputed Keystone XL pipeline


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

My take is investors have discounted much value to Keystone XL given its soap opera history. It also helps that the AB gov't has made an equity investment and a loan guarantee. TRP shareholders are not nearly as exposed from a 'sunk cost' perspective than when they were solely at risk. Indeed, I would not be surprised if TRP had told the AB gov't that they (and thus shareholders) could no longer bear sole risk in this project and sought something like Ottawa's rescue of TMX as a means to continue. Especially important given a Dem victory in Nov would risk any further investments made in 2020. Hardly tenable to the TRP shareholder.

This could wipe out any material Montana based construction in 2020.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TRP never really had Keystone priced into future expectations. They have been growing quite well without it. Natural gas, which is a majority of their pipeline business, is in a stronger place than oil pipelines as well. A nice 17% discount to 52 week high still.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

more bad news for TRP's keystone P/L








U.S. Supreme Court deals setback to Keystone oil pipeline project


The U.S. Supreme Court has handed another setback to the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada by keeping in place a lower court ruling that blocked a key permit...




www.marketwatch.com


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

TRP and Jason Kenney will (should) re-think why they are (will be) spending money this year on construction of the AB segment of Keystone XL, and I think the border crossing segment too. I strongly suspect that had AB not decided to put taxpayer money into the game earlier this year that TRP would have stopped spending shareholder money that will otherwise have to be written off if the project dies.

I would not be surprised if in the next few days (or week) that both TRP and AB will freeze further construction work pending the outcome of the US election. If Biden wins, I think this project is dead and TRP will take a writeoff of sunk costs by mid-2021. A $20 drop in stock price over 5 months is pretty significant notwithstanding some of that is the covid effect. IMO, all the bad news is now priced in.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TRP had never substantially priced in KXL, in my opinion. All these court cases prove is that pipe in the ground remains extremely valuable because its harder and harder to get any new ones built. I sold out of TRP at $69-70 in March (10%+ below the high) but I think this is probably becoming a good place to get back in.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

what about a Biden (Dems) victory in Nov? 
Biden is not a fan of KXL.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

dubmac said:


> what about a Biden (Dems) victory in Nov?
> Biden is not a fan of KXL.


That is already known, but the stock may take a bit of a hit anyway....even if that scenario is already priced in! Those impulsive emotional investors be damned.


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

I’m surprised that there hasn’t been some conspiracy theories posted about the Saudis funding Keystone interference.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

@doctrine. Interesting article in the G&M today that sounds very much in line with your perspective. Warren Buffett likes pipelines. Maybe you should too 

“A lot of these midstream stocks in the U.S. and Canada have really gotten hit – not as much as E&P [exploration and production], but really hit. And this is Warren saying that the businesses are still sound and it is getting harder and harder to build pipelines and transmission assets,” Laura Lau, the chief investment officer at Toronto-based Brompton Funds, said in an interview.​“I think pipe in the ground is worth more than before because it is so much harder to build,” Ms. Lau added.​
“On the other hand, the transaction offers validation that there are large investors with an interest in high-quality pipeline assets. We expect there will continue to be strategic transactions in the pipeline sector, given the limited ability to grow by developing new infrastructure,” Hinds Howard, infrastructure portfolio manager for CBRE Clarion Securities, said in an e-mail, adding that Canadian pipeline operators will be among the acquirers.​Mr. Buffett may have set in motion a round of dealmaking that will support the whole pipeline sector – and reward investors.​I saw an article by a Goldman-Sachs analyst that he expects oil to rally to 66 in 2021.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Looking for opinions on how the Biden win would effect the overall stock if he goes ahead with cancelled the pipeline as he as indicated. Thanks for any input, appreciate it.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm not convinced KXL completion is priced in to TRP's value. Having said that Biden is not a moron & understands that Americans need cheap energy, most likely after appeasing the radical left by cancelling presidential approval for KXL he would promote other pipeline solutions.

I think a more important consideration is how can TRP proceed with any growth in Canada with Trudeau in charge.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TRP's future isn't dependent on KXL. But they are spending money on it, so a cancellation will be another billion or two burned, likely more than Energy East. They have such a wide network now that they have plenty of opportunity for incremental growth. I like it at the $65 level here and a 5% yield with one of the lower payouts from major pipeline companies.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think TC's stock price will take a bit of a hit with a Biden win, simply because it will become a 'finality' that KXL won't be completed. I agree with others that KXL completion is not baked into today's price but there will still be a pyschological effect that will weigh on the stock price near term. For those looking for an entry point, I think it is worth a better than 50-50 chance of a temporarily lower price post-election.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

Thanks kindly for the responses, much appreciated. I am looking at an entry point and waiting a bit may be a reasonable idea.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

CEO Russ Girling announced his retirement today -he will step down at the end of 2020. François Poirier, currently TC’s chief operating officer, will succeed Mr. Girling as CEO.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think Girling retiring is a big negative for TRP...he has been a voice of reason countering the extremes so in fashion today.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I think the sooner TRP throws in the towel on KXL the better it will be for the company. The big unknown to me would be the size of the write off with some? much? of it passed through to certain shippers per Contigency Payments


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Biden stated (a while ago) he would get rid of KXL. Not sure if he'll succeed or not, but regardless, with the current situation, and a Biden win, I think KXL will get axed. TRP's market cap is 42.5 Billion. The cost for the project is 1.5 Billion (see here). ...and would therefore be about a 1.5 Billion hit to market cap ... but the bigger unknown, IMO, is the impact on contracts etc that have been included in the KXL plan. Morningstar analysts suggest KXL will get done in late 2023 along with ENB's Line 3. Difficult to separate noise from news from information in all this.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That $1.5B is only AB's equity injection into the project. The project itself is $6B or more and there will be a lot of sunk cost if cancelled late this year, early 2021..


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

ouch. 

Quick calculation on the back of a napkin. 6/42 = 0.15. 
Likely a 15-20% drop on that news? ..would put the market price (post write-down) at around 50, but as you mention, the contingency payments have not been added in. 
Of course - they could stock pile the pipe and use it in other projects...mexico etc. who knows if that could help offset some of the impact


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

$6B is the estimated completed cost....not the sunk cost. There may be $1-2B of sunk costs, some of it to be clawed back through contingency payments and some of it on the AB taxpayer's back based on its equity share (whatever that is).


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I guess the next question would be "how much, if any, has already been factored into the current share price?".
I was pretty sure KXL was a no go (or highly unlikely) even under the Obama administration (2015 veto). Trump promised a huge infrastructure bill that never came to be. Continued delays and appeals left me feeling less than optimistic. That being said I still bought some TC energy in the last year as a long term hold. Good or bad KXL's final(?) death under Biden may necessary so that we can move on.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Long term, I'm still optimistic on TRP. They did well on the Columbia P/L purchase.
There will likely be some bumps in the near term, but overall, this is a long term hold - kinda like RY and BCE and other banks.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

I wonder why the very first pipe in the ground, the moment it's approved, is not the 5km section from Coutts AB to Sweetgrass MT. Then, with that out of the way, all the other wrangling does not involve the feds. It would be worth it to truck oil to Coutts, pump it across the border, and then truck it from Sweetgrass for a year, just to limit the risk exposure while the two national sections of the pipeline remain incomplete.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Actually the border crossing has been constructed earlier this summer.

Added: One of numerous links on the subject. Keystone XL finishes pipeline across the border


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

K. So doesn't that essentially de-risk the federal approval process? If the pipe can be in service, even at a nominal level, then it is a fait accompli vis-a-vis any incoming government in January. Telling TRP to dig it up would trigger all sorts of legal liability under NAFTA.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

It was installed with presidential approval...wont be coming out.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

TC Energy inks deal for Indigenous ownership stake in Keystone XL pipeline

TC Energy inks deal for Indigenous ownership stake in Keystone XL pipeline - BNN Bloomberg


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Good move. TC needs to leverage off some of its capital exposure and bring more sheep into the fold.

Now TC needs to get some American FN ownership on board. That would make it harder for Biden to cancel without a racist card being thrown at him....... Just saying....


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think they did sign an agreement with a Montana Indian nation. (They prefer to be called Indians there). I'm sure they're looking for more in the USA.


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

TRP announced a staff reduction and reorg this morning. No specific numbers were detailed.


----------



## Retiredguy (Jul 24, 2013)

Interesting that TC announced today 1.6B in contract awards for keystone... just before the election, with comments of support from various companies and union officials. Biden has previously said he would kill it. I think not.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I'm thinking the move is to make it harder for Biden to cancel. America does need KXL built in the long run, but its purely political today.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

TRP shares are at a 15 yr low in valuation.
RBC Dominion Securities analyst Robert Kwan:
“With the upcoming November 3 election, a Trump re-election should give the company a four-year window to complete the financially attractive Keystone XL project (6 times EBITDA cash on-cash build multiple),” he said. “However, if Biden becomes president, we see multiple avenues for upside, including: (1) potential for increased natural gas demand to firm up accelerated renewable power deployment and also drive meaningful GHG emissions reductions from coal-to-gas switching; (2) removing the distraction of KXL; and (3) with KXL out of the picture, we see the potential for an attractive move to monetize the Liquids Pipelines assets, which would have numerous benefits.”
Not sure if any of this crystal-ball gazing will materialize, but with TRP shares approaching 50, it is looking attractive.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

dubmac said:


> (2) removing the distraction of KXL; and (3) with KXL out of the picture, we see the potential for an attractive move to monetize the Liquids Pipelines assets, which would have numerous benefits.”


I don't know, but that sounds like some real spin there. It seems like someone who says, "finally after all these years of worrying about my execution date, they finally set it. Now I can get back to being happy again."

But maybe I'm wrong.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Eder said:


> I'm thinking the move is to make it harder for Biden to cancel. America does need KXL built in the long run, but its purely political today.


My take is KXL will not be required long term. As land vehicles move to EV, oil consumption in the form of gasoline and diesel will dramatically decrease. Some 70% of US oil consumption is used for all forms of transportation overall so if we were to say 50% is used for land transportation with the rest being marine and air, that is almost 10 million barrels per day of circa 20 million barrels per day of total usage.. Even a 50% reduction in land transportation use would dramatically reduce oil consumption by 5 million barrels per day. KXL could be a heavily underutilized white elephant by 2030 or so

Added: The stacked bar charts just below the pie charts in this link tell the story.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> My take is KXL will not be required long term. As land vehicles move to EV, oil consumption in the form of gasoline and diesel will dramatically decrease. Some 70% of US oil consumption is used for all forms of transportation overall so if we were to say 50% is used for land transportation with the rest being marine and air, that is almost 10 million barrels per day of circa 20 million barrels per day of total usage.. Even a 50% reduction in land transportation use would dramatically reduce oil consumption by 5 million barrels per day. KXL could be a heavily underutilized white elephant by 2030 or so


No doubt some part of ICE land transportation will move to EVs. But I suppose there will still continue to be growth in total number of vehicles?

I read somewhere that much of oil (2/3?) shipped to gulf coast from Alberta would, after refining, be exported as finished product to Mexico, South America, China etc . Need for the pipeline would perhaps not be totally dependent on transportation demand in USA.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

With excess refining capacity in the USA, product is exported, but there is (will be) excess refining capacity everywhere in the world. Aging European refineries are most at risk but there will be headwinds for Gulf Coast refineries trying to move product into Europe. A reason why it makes no sense for anyone to buy and re-start Come-by-Chance in NF and why Irving in Saint John has no appetite to invest in capacity to treat more volumes of bitumen. If Venezuela ever got its shite together gain, its Orinoco heavy would compete with Canadian bitumen on the Gulf Coast. 

Some info in this link and a simple chart here There is simply way too much capacity worldwide.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

The refinery in Newfoundland is done. It only ever operated because the government waived all past environmental liability. Companies are lining up to see if the government will offer subsidies, but there is no stand alone business model that makes sense. RIP


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

I think the demise of internal combustion engines is overstated. Will there still be gas engines in 20 years.....yes, I think they will still be produced. Gas engines are also getting more efficient which I think will prolong their use. 

I think the biggest factor with EVs, is the lack of charging infrastructure across the country. Americans in particular love the “road trip” and often have family much farther away than your typical Canadian family. We also seem to have huge difficulties getting large-scale infrastructure projects off the ground in North America.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

TRP will weather this storm because the demand for NG is soaring, and there is a bit of a supply crunch shaping up that could last years. EV infrastructure is coming along but you can plot the decline in oil consumption in the developed world and still end up with far more oil demand 10 and 20 years out based on the rest of the world, including/especially India and China.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Money172375 said:


> I think the demise of internal combustion engines is overstated. Will there still be gas engines in 20 years.....yes, I think they will still be produced. Gas engines are also getting more efficient which I think will prolong their use.
> 
> I think the biggest factor with EVs, is the lack of charging infrastructure across the country. Americans in particular love the “road trip” and often have family much farther away than your typical Canadian family. We also seem to have huge difficulties getting large-scale infrastructure projects off the ground in North America.


I agree there will be plenty of ICE vehicles still remaining on the roads in 20 years. If they are still selling them in 2030 (and they will be), it will take another 10-15 years to retire them off the roads. That is really not the point since demand for both gasoline and diesel will be in permanent decline for decades.

Individual states, some more than others, are investing fairly heavily in EV infrastructure along major routes so that will not be the impediment many think it will be. A few links Three US states will spend $1.3 billion to build more electric vehicle charging and Electric Cars in America: How States are Creating Electric Vehicle Infrastructure | BidNet In many ways, the more progressive of the US states are moving a lot faster than Canada may ever be. We talk a good game but do little.

Added: Yes, both TRP and ENB will do just fine. Both move a lot of gas in the USA (Spectra was purchased by ENB for a reason) and existing oil pipelines will continue to generate revenue with minimal recurring operating capital.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Interestingly - if the big players like Volvo/VW and others are making changes on that scale, it looks like the next 5 years will see some real change in auto sales... but it begs the question "which companies/businesses stand to benefit most from this huge transition to EV?" Would it be Hydro companies (highly regulated)? Would it be companies that develop/replace electric car batteries (sounds like these companies are/would be foreign - but I don't know, I think China has the battery market pretty locked up)? 
Are companies like TRP/ENB positioning themselves to respond to the change? Some crystal-ball gazers suggest that companies like TRP stand to benefit because their natural gas business stands to benefit as Power companies use natural gas to help augment power from renewable sources etc. Not sure who knows these answers, but I'd be interested to learn who follows this kind of stuff.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think something many are missing is that Enbridge is one of the largest renewable energy companies in Canada.









Renewable energy


Our renewable energy projects (operating or under construction) produce enough electricity to power about 967,000 homes.



www.enbridge.com





TransCanada is also investing in a long string of renewable energy infrastructure although I can't find a decent link to post.

These guys are more than gas & oil pipes.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

One of the reasons that companies like TRP rename themselves. A lot of cash flow not being invested in new pipe can be invested in renewables. It pays to take a look at their Investor Presentations for at least trends in management direction, if not specifics.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

TRP approaching a 5 yr low, not unexpected given the comments that the DEMs made about keystone and fossil fuels...but given that the DEMS would be unable to pass laws etc, I'm wondering whether KXL will prevail. We'll see.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Well they won't need presidential approval for the border crossing anymore since it was installed back in May.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I sold TRP at $69 back on 28 Feb. It looks good here at $50 with a 6.4% yield, but so does ENB at $35.82 and 9.0% and PPL at $26.78 and 9.4%. Everytime a pipeline fight erupts, it makes the ones in the ground more valuable. But I think I would wait for more of a short term bottom at least, all of them are setting new lows every week here.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

So when the inevitable order comes down that KXL is dead, what recourse does TC have? Could they sue??? if yes what kind of damages may they be awarded? Billions down the drain on this foolish bet. I have zero doubt this is done like dinner as n Biden's speech he mentioned Climate change again and Systemic Racism so it is clear he is going HARD LEFT.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

robfordlives said:


> ....he mentioned Climate change again and Systemic Racism so it is clear he is going HARD LEFT.


Wait until Harris takes over and then you'll realize what "HARD LEFT" really means. Can you say "Green New Deal"....

ltr


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

I watched an interview earlier today on the post newspaper website with Eric Nuttall that the KXL pipeline is not needed.

Don't worry about Biden — 'Canada's oilpatch doesn't need Keystone XL anymore:' Eric Nuttall


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Thats his opinion...I think once we boot Sockboy we need Northern Gateway as well.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

robfordlives said:


> So when the inevitable order comes down that KXL is dead, what recourse does TC have? Could they sue??? if yes what kind of damages may they be awarded? Billions down the drain on this foolish bet. I have zero doubt this is done like dinner as n Biden's speech he mentioned Climate change again and Systemic Racism so it is clear he is going HARD LEFT.


There is no doubt that if TC Energy is building under an approved presidential permit that then gets cancelled, the government will be liable for the damages.

Canada doesn't need KXL, especially with TMX under construction. Line 3 is still very likely as well. It's all built except for one portion through Minnesota which is awaiting permitting and a few outstanding court cases. But I'm not so sure that there is a legal case to cancel TC Energy at all.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I am on record having said a number of times the Cdn oil industry really does not need KXL if Line 3 replacement and TMX occur. Canada's oil production will barely fill both Line 3 replacement and TMX and it probably cannot find (afford) the capital to increase production enough to ever fill KXL. Even if oil prices could support all that capital investment, it would take at least 5+ years to do it, and by that time, climate change initiative will likely have permanently arrested demand growth. At best, I see KXL running full for a minimum of years, causing all sorts of financial headwinds for the producers that have committed to 20 year shipping contracts.

Even if TC sues with the pulling of the presidential permit, it will take years of litigation and AB will be on the hook with its equity interest and loan guarantee. Yet again, the AB taxpayer will take a thrashing..

There is some opinion out there that with the border crossing installed already (intentionally so before the US election this year), the rest of KXL is simply US interstate commerce regulated by FERC and the presidential permit is no longer relevant, and that a court would reject the concept that the WH can now 'stop' the pipeline. That could be technically true but the road ahead getting all the state and federal permits could face huge headwinds (inability to cross Federal Lands for example). That all said, I don't know enough about it to offer more than an armchair quarterback opinion.


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

With the recent run in some pipeline stocks I plead with you all to sell anything pipeline related. This is the insanity to expect going forward. This will actually hurt the poor the most as their utility costs will skyrocket. With all this green power supposedly taking over, electrical utilities should be skyrocketing.........









No more natural gas in new San Francisco buildings starting next year


The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday to ban natural gas in...




www.sfchronicle.com


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

There was talk in Ontario of banning natural gas in new homes by the Wynne government. It got laughed down pretty quickly. How much natural gas does a home in San Francisco burn compared to a home in Minnesota during a full calendar year?


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

robfordlives said:


> With the recent run in some pipeline stocks I plead with you all to sell anything pipeline related. This is the insanity to expect going forward. This will actually hurt the poor the most as their utility costs will skyrocket. With all this green power supposedly taking over, electrical utilities should be skyrocketing.........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Our new-to-us home has a heat pump. I would assume these are very popular and should be, if not already,the primary heat source for anyone in the lower half of the US. If it’s somewhat reasonable for me in Canada, then there’s no need for fossil fuels in residential heating in the lower US.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

The new apt building we moved into 2 years ago has a heat pump in each unit for heating/cooling. Monthly cost is between $50 -$65 depending on season. It has a fan that is designed to run 24/7 for air circulation. No hot water tanks either in the apartments. Lots of hot water but am not sure how the system is setup.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

newfoundlander61 said:


> The new apt building we moved into 2 years ago has a heat pump in each unit for heating/cooling. Monthly cost is between $50 -$65 depending on season. It has a fan that is designed to run 24/7 for air circulation. No hot water tanks either in the apartments. Lots of hot water but am not sure how the system is setup.


----------



## birdman (Feb 12, 2013)

We live in Kelowna and maybe 7 years ago we put in a top of the line heat pump to replace the aging one which was there. Our back up heat was an electric furnace which was expensive to operate but more efficient than the heat pump when temperatures got low. Our friends had gas back up and they were told to shut off the heat pump in the winter and rely on gas. We could not do it as our back up was electric and there was no gas to our house. About 2 years ago we decided to bring gas to the house and replaced the electric with gas and electricity bills have dropped by 33%. The heat pump is just used as an air conditioner and works well. The simple answer is to reduce electricity prices and increase the cost of natural gas but I never hear any mention of this.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

frase said:


> The simple answer is to reduce electricity prices and increase the cost of natural gas but I never hear any mention of this.


In Ontario we've been subject to a Federal carbon charge that has been included on our gas bills since 2019. That carbon tax is ramping up very fast. The rates so far are:
2019=3.91 cents/cubic meter, 
2020=5.87 cents/cubic meter, 
2021=7.83 cents/cubic meter,
2022=9.79 cents/cubic meter.

So you can see where this is going. They want to stop gas from being used in any buildings. I see today that San Francisco has banned gas in new buildings. I certainly would be hesitant today to install a new gas product in my home in anticipation of how much it would cost to operate in the future.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

NG will almost certainly always be less expensive than electricity, at least in Western Canada, even with hefty carbon taxes. It is simply because cost of electrical generation will go up with all the renewables and NG backup that would be required, along with transmission and distribution system expansion, even if battery storage becomes an order of magnitude cheaper. The new Site C hydro-electric dam on the Peace River will add even more cost to electrical bills.

The NG infrastructure in most of BC is in place without much, if any, additional capital required and gas production sources are local in the northeast portion of the province. I have no doubt the interior of BC will have most heating usage on natural gas for decades to come. The only place I can see electricity becoming more dominant is in the Lower Mainland where new suburbs can be designed for electrical energy from scratch, and both heating and A/C load is moderate.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Why is TRP dropping more than the index?
since Oct 30, oil went from 36 to 48 today. ..so apparently the two are not strongly co-related.
I realize that Biden's plan is to scrap KXL, and there is noise related to that issue.
Also, I think that CEO Gurling is set to officially retire tomorrow, Dec 31.
Not panicking or anything - I'll ride this one a lot lower, but are there any other reasons why TRP's stock price is dropping to these lows?


----------



## robfordlives (Sep 18, 2014)

Noone wants to show they own this junk on their year end disclosure due to the ESG movement. This has so severely under-perfomed a simple S&P index. There are no positive catalysts at all for this stock going forward. Gurling was a disaster so I suppose that is one "positive"


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I like TRP and may move back into it if there is some sort of selloff with KXL. Just waiting for the decision and seeing what sort of liability it might cause.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

robfordlives said:


> Noone wants to show they own this junk on their year end disclosure due to the ESG movement. This has so severely under-perfomed a simple S&P index. There are no positive catalysts at all for this stock going forward. Gurling was a disaster so I suppose that is one "positive"


Utter nonsense.

ltr


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

The price at close 30 Dec was $51.28 getting down their again. Citi energy analyst Timm Schneider has replaced ENB with TRP as his fav canadian stock pick. Mind you I don't follow analyst's for selecting stocks but thought this was something to post in this thread about TRP.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Yes. I see the reference to Schneider in the G&M feed today.
I think this one is under pressure with many on the sidelines waiting to see what Biden will (or can) do about KXL. I'm left wondering when he will announce any plans to cancel KXL - likely in the first 100 days or so of his presidency I suspect. Many suggest that Canada & Cdn Energy biz do not "need" KXL. Others point to the ESG movement as the reason TRP - which may have some influence - but I personally don't see hydrocarbons (gas or oil), or P/L's disappearing soon. (Coal, yes - it will disappear).


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I would agree with Dubmac re: hydrocarbons and even coal will be tough to completely kill if technology develops to make it cost effective and reduce emissions. This technology is being researched and developed but the Trudeau Carbon Tax has put it on hold. I have a bit of a contrarian view on Biden and KXL. Killing jobs during a Covid recovery will not bode well for the President elect who has also put him self forward as labour friendly and infrastructure friendly. Trump had promised a large infrastructure spend that never came to be during his presidency. My suspicion is KXL will continue to sit in purgatory and money or incentives will go to new green initiatives. Moving to greener and cleaner energy is politically appealing in the short term and may even make sense economically in the long term. Like most things people take an either or approach in opinion but rarely in practice.


----------



## newfoundlander61 (Feb 6, 2011)

No fooling around with the new president:

Biden indicates plans to cancel Keystone XL pipeline permit on first day in office, sources confirm

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/biden-keystone-xl-1.5877038


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I wonder how TRP will handle this news on Tuesday. I'm curious to see how much of a drop will ensue.
from morningstar jan 6th - a rather optimisitc view

No Keystone XL, No Problem:​TC Energy Looks Undervalued and Offers an Attractive Yield​Analyst Note Joe Gemino, CPA, Senior Equity Analyst, 6 Jan 2021​We are lowering our fair value estimate for narrow-moat TC Energy to $51 (CAD 66) from $52 (CAD 68). With Joe Biden being sworn in as president later this month, we expect him to rescind the Keystone XL’s presidential permit, and it is unlikely that the pipeline will be built. Accordingly, we are removing the project from our forecasts. The modest decrease in our U.S. fair value was a result of a stronger U.S. dollar versus the Canadian dollar. Despite the lower fair value, we still see almost 25% upside in the 4- star stock. In our view, we think that market is overlooking the incremental cash flow from the company’s growth portfolio, even without the Keystone XL. Additionally, the stock is yielding 6.5% with more than enough coverage from its distributable cash flow.​


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

Looking back on post 119 is a prime example of my ability to predict the future. This is why I hardly invest on my predictions. Be interesting to see how it shakes out for TC and Premier Kenney


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

KXL is not needed if Enbridge Line 3 replacement and TMX get built. We will thank Biden in about 3-5 years.


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

Given that a) TC energy offloaded most of the risk to Alberta and b) The legal case for 100% of reimbursement is incredibly strong, there is no real long term risk to TC Energy here. Also they are primarily a natural gas pipeline company with power generation assets and just a few oil pipelines. Definitely high on my buy list here. Slight move down today but the real story will be tomorrow when US markets are back open. Will be nice to get some finality so the company and the focus can move on.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

Up 5% today.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Money172375 said:


> Up 5% today.


Yeah. I was thinking of averaging down but others beat be to it. I expect there will be other opportunities.



doctrine said:


> The legal case for 100% of reimbursement is incredibly strong, there is no real long term risk to TC Energy here.


It would be interesting to see if the Americans actually paid off on that, though. They seem to be alright with walking away from treaty obligations when they feel like it.

In any event, I feel like the perpetual uncertainty about KXL has been priced in since the week before Obama said "no", and virtually any level of success it might achieve is mainly upside. KXL also serves a lot of the midwestern US oil shale areas and can likely pay its freight on that basis without any US federal approval.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

I bought a lil more around 53.7.
here's what Moringstar said about TC Energy (today)
​Canadian Oil Is Poised to Grow, Even Without the Keystone XL Analyst Note Joe Gemino, CPA, Senior Equity Analyst, 19 Jan 2021​​With oil prices on the rise, Canada's crude pipeline egress problem is resurfacing. Oil sands economics have proved to be resilient, and many existing projects can generate free cash flow at oil prices below $40 a barrel West Texas Intermediate, or WTI. Supply will soon be approaching precrisis levels, and Canada's oil industry will need new pipeline infrastructure to bring new crude to market and prevent heavy oil prices from crashing as they did in December 2018. With Joe Biden winning the U.S. presidential election, it is almost assured he will revoke the Keystone XL's presidential permit, shelving the project indefinitely. Fortunately for oil producers, we do not expect the same opposition to Enbridge's Line 3 replacement. Line 3, combined with the Canadian government's Trans Mountain expansion and modular capacity additions on existing pipelines, will create 1.1 million barrels of new pipeline capacity by the end of 2023. Additionally, oil sands producers can take advantage of favorable heavy oil pricing in the U.S. Gulf Coast. Refiners in the region are battling declining imports from Venezuela and Mexico, a trend we expect to continue. With the Keystone XL no longer the answer to the region's problems, prices are attractive enough to incentivize rail transportation as a supplement market option for oil sands producers. Accordingly, we expect Canadian supply to grow 6.3 million barrels of oil per day by 2030, increasing by 1 mmbbl/d over the next decade. We think the market is underestimating the growth prospects and the cash flow potential of the oil sands producers along with the midstream pipeline operators. Accordingly, we see pockets of undervalued stocks, which include wide-moat Enbridge, narrow-moat TC Energy, and Canadian Natural Resources.​


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I like Morningstar but if they want to comment seriously they should clue in that Alberta oil is not priced in WTI units.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

TC wrote off $1 Billion on KXL. did ok last qtr








TC Energy reports solid first quarter operating performance


Continues to advance $20 billion secured capital program following formal suspension of Keystone XL...




www.globenewswire.com


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

TC officially cancels KXL for good.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Good article in G&M today - but may be behind a paywall.
Basically, TC Energy "..will be just fine" going forward.
It plans to increase the payout by 5 per cent to 7 per cent annually after this year.
it's up 26% YTD. 95% of it's cash flow is pretty much guaranteed.
But...we knew that all along....


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

They are issuing new shares at $63.50 on Aug 10. Seems like a good price since it's been trading at $65 this week. Anyone else sign up for this issue? I asked for 100, but I expect to get a partial allocation.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Or about the price it was also trading at on circa Jan 26th of this year. It must be to fund the Mexican pipeline partnership announced today. Don't know if this is a good thing or not. Things have a way of turning to shite in Mexico.


----------



## Dilbert (Nov 20, 2016)

It looks like the street agrees with you this morning.


----------



## cliffsecord (Jan 10, 2020)

Took this opportunity to sell my KEY stock and transfer over to TRP at 62.5x to reduce my total number of holdings. TRP has better dividend growth and the dividends today are almost the same. Now I only have ENB and TRP as pipelines.

Thanks for bringing this up as a buying opportunity.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

Thinking of adding a bit again. I wonder of the leak in Kansas this week will be a big deal for them. They can fix the pipe in a few days, but there is a risk of regulatory moves and that there will be an expensive maintenance requirement on the horizon that will put the line out of commission for months while it is dug up, inspected, serviced/repaired. It feels like a risk to buy more without waiting to see what happens.

Anyone have details on what exactly happened to the pipe? I can't find much so far.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is doubtful the line will be down for more than 2 weeks, perhaps 4 at the outside.... and only that portion south of the hub at Steele City. I think the northern section will be back in service within days.

Added: This appears to be the latest Major oil spill in rural Kansas creek shuts down Keystone pipeline Too early to know the cause but the rupture had to be big enough to trigger a pressure drop and system warning. It usually is a linear rupture along the pipe, inches long or metres long resulting from external physical stresses, e.g. a sloughing of the line causing stresses to go beyond 'yield strength' of the pipe, or a physical rupture from equipment puncture. It could also be corrosion though that should have been picked up via scheduled/ongoing pigging operations designed to catch such anomalies. I suspect we will know more in a few days.

Added2: I was in charge of an oil pipeline decades ago in which we had an oil spill that blew oil into the sky. That rupture was caused by 'deep ploughing' operations by the farmer in the field, going far too deep into the soil. The plough literally sliced through the top 3 inches or so of the pipe despite its buried depth.


----------



## londoncalling (Sep 17, 2011)

I have been waiting for the price to drop on the news of the leak but so far that hasn't happened. I love how the US press call its tar sands oil. 😂


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

To get some insight on where TRP is headed, have a look at the 2022 investor presentation here.
I get the impression that TRP is really focused on hydrogen technology and carbon sequestering in the coming decade.
This is a significant change IMO. Hydrogen is just starting to be introduced as a viable, safe fuel - looks like TRP is all in on this.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Perhaps they are 'all in' but I don't think so. I think they want to be doing enough to have 'replacement' business for when fossil fuel shipments start falling off materially some years hence. Shareholders won't accept large investments in this space until there is more certainty but it is appropriate to spend some 'non-regulated' capital in an area which can potentially use some of the pipeline space that could go vacant otherwise. It is a long shot that won't show much clarity before the end of this decade.


----------



## gardner (Feb 13, 2014)

So it looks like the affected pipeline segment went back into service last week. At C$55 it would be a bargain except with this cleanup and potential regulatory cloud hanging over it.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Press suggests that TRP's success in maintaining integrity in their P/L is not so good. Not sure what it means long term.








Leaks from Keystone pipeline have increased in severity in recent years, U.S. data show


TC Energy has more than 250 people on the ground in Washington County, Kan., cleaning up the approximately 14,000 barrels of oil that leaked into a creek last week




www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It does seem problematic on that pipeline in particular. As per the G&M article, the problems seem related to contractor deficiencies in one or more of the original construction spreads. There has been a history of welding quality issues and potentially worse, insufficient rigor on the NDT process used to inspect weld quality. The point of NDT before the pipeline is laid in the trench is to catch both random and systemic weld quality issues.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Not sure but I think that TRP had increased the volume oil and perhaps the pressure in the P/L before this leak. I thought that I had read that somewhere in the press...can;t find the source tho


...found it...here








Keystone spill prompts scrutiny of permit allowing pipeline to run faster


The largest oil spill in the 12-year history of TC Energy Corp's Keystone pipeline, discovered late Wednesday, raises questions about special permission it received five years ago to run at higher pressure, making it unique among U.S. oil pipelines.




www.reuters.com


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

That was in 2017 when the US regulator allowed in-service use of MAOP (Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure) to be at 80% of yield (which I think is common in Canada) rather than 72% of yield which is applicable in many other countries. The higher MAOP simply allows higher pressure at the outlet of pump stations to push higher volumes of flow through the pipe without necessarily adding more pump stations at shorter distance intervals in the line. The risk, however, is that flawed welds or flawed pipe joints would have about 10-11% (I think) higher probability of failure. It has been a very long time since I have done pipeline operating pressure calculations. The line was permitted at 80% of yield but it was not until 2017 that the US regulator allowed TRP to operate the line at higher pressure. U.S. pipeline regulator launched review of special permit process following audit of Keystone spills

I am not sure how the recent 'higher flow' test factors into this. Is it coincidental or was an existing flaw triggered by the increased test flow rate? Keystone spill coincided with test of higher flows | Argus Media


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

"....This allowed for thinner but stronger pipeline walls. TC Energy said this would also cut steel costs by about 10pc."

that ^ is a worrisome statement....


----------

