# NEB Rules in Favour of TMP



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

nice ... i am still deeply pessimistic about the sector but perhaps will be proved wrong

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ipeline-expansion-in-public-interest-despite/

looks like we may next witness an internecine war between indigenous people ...


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I think it is going to get built as the modules have been in fabrication in China for several weeks now. I'm assuming the Liberals know.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

The approval is good news, though I am sure we haven't heard the end of the protests.

OTOH that's bad news that key components are being made with Chinese steel. China has too big a problem with quality control over products.


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

Drove out to Jasper this weekend for some skiing. Construction prep is well underway and very obvious. They were busy putting together access roads, lay down yards, etc. Very obvious between Hinton and Jasper (including in the National park).

My friend works for a company that specializes in building oil terminal tanks. He has started commuting back and forth between Edmonton and Vancouver to oversee the Burnaby terminal expansion.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

nobleea said:


> Drove out to Jasper this weekend for some skiing. Construction prep is well underway and very obvious. They were busy putting together access roads, lay down yards, etc. Very obvious between Hinton and Jasper (including in the National park).
> 
> My friend works for a company that specializes in building oil terminal tanks. He has started commuting back and forth between Edmonton and Vancouver to oversee the Burnaby terminal expansion.




thankx for the good news

transCanada recently had no trouble permitting a new pipeline extension to the Arc Resources gas field that's under development at attachie in northeastern BC, although it will be an interprovincial extension & indigenous nations are involved stakeholders

slow & steady baby steps win the day

PS are your kids skiing already? time flies, only yesterday they were newborn. So amazing to think you might be taking them out now to ski the Rockies


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Horgan is upset over the spike in gasoline prices and is considering providing government relief to high prices? 
He suggests industry should invest more in refining and the feds invest more in supply?
This after BC's most recent carbon tax increase, and fighting the expansion of TMP every step of the way?

Just how stupid and/or stoned is this guy?

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...an-considering-relief-for-soaring-gas-prices/
https://twitter.com/i/status/1113904949824446464


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Exceptionally stupid. Hard to believe anyone with gray matter would say that given his position on TMEP. Of course, he expects more refining in AB and moving more gasoline down existing TM, not added refining in the Lower Mainland.

He may now be facing continual activists on the Coastal BasLink project for his LNG project.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

More from Horgan the Horrible. Whether its because he smokes or not, this guy is brain dead:

_“We don’t have enough refined product for the travelling public,” Horgan told reporters. “We need to talk to the gas companies about why they are not refining more product.”
Which brings up the Horgan government’s own legislative monkeywrenching of the prospects for a refinery, namely Bill 28, the Zero Emission Vehicles Act.
Tabled earlier this month, the legislation would establish a timetable for moving new vehicle sales exclusively to the zero emission version over the next 20 years.
The key provision: “On or after January 1, 2040, a person must not make a consumer sale of a light-duty motor vehicle that is not a zero-emission vehicle.”
The penalty for selling even one gasoline or diesel-powered vehicle after that date is a fine of up to half a million dollars and six months in prison.

So, to recap, the premier is calling on the oil and gas industry to invest billions of dollars in a project that would take years to build and decades to pay off. At the same time he is proposing that within 21 years, it would become illegal to sell the new vehicles that would be the prime consumers of the output of said refinery.
To put it another way, on the one hand the premier thinks the oil and gas companies are greedy gougers and on the other, he thinks they are stupid._

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/co...ingers-but-not-at-himself-for-high-gas-prices


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

Hmm...this quote taken from the headlines on the buzz around the TMP being approved. Me wonders how this impact all those energy and P/L stocks out there. 
_
A major CP Rail line that runs through the heart of Calgary, separating the downtown core from the trendy Belt line area, normally elicits little excitement. But on Tuesday morning, a train carrying hundreds of green-coated, wide-diameter steel pipe was the talk of the town and raised the oil patch’s hopes the federal government is poised to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion on June 18.

“Something is definitely developing,” said Canoe Financial senior portfolio manager and director Rafi Tahmazian, who saw the pipe-laden carriages and said a photo of the train moving westbound circulated between analysts and energy sector office workers.

Pipes have been arriving at Trans Mountain work sites for weeks where nearly a third of all the pipe needed for the project is now staged, the Financial Post has confirmed._


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It may well be that TM had to take possession of deliveries per terms of the purchase contract. I wouldn't read much into this since I don't see how a construction spread could be mobilized this year at this date and get much done.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> It may well be that TM had to take possession of deliveries per terms of the purchase contract. I wouldn't read much into this since I don't see how a construction spread could be mobilized this year at this date and get much done.


..kinda sloppy reporting then by the financial post (they were the source...).


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

dubmac said:


> ..kinda sloppy reporting then by the financial post (they were the source...).


Time will tell of course......


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Horgan is upset over the spike in gasoline prices and is considering providing government relief to high prices?
> He suggests industry should invest more in refining and the feds invest more in supply?
> This after BC's most recent carbon tax increase, and fighting the expansion of TMP every step of the way?
> 
> ...


Typical leftie, the level of cognitive dissonance is amazing.
They're actively working to ban oil and gas, making it as difficult and expensive as possible. Then they wonder why the price went up.

I am actually surprised that they didn't realize a carbon tax, of which the primary goal is to make gas more expensive, results in more expensive gas. I know that these guys aren't very bright, and they're blatantly pandering to get votes, but stuff like that literally makes my brain hurt. (As in yes, such extremely contradictory thoughts give me a slight headache)
I heard that they don't actually think logically, but sheesh, this is pretty extreme.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

A gas price of $1.64 a litre in BC ? The price here is $1.04 a litre.

Ontario is much further away and has much lower gas prices ?

The west probably does need more refineries, if that is what is driving up the price.


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

Maybe the trick in these politically sensitive times is to label those against the pipeline as "anti-trans". :subdued: (Now you may know why my kids groan at my jokes.)


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

MrMatt said:


> I am actually surprised that they didn't realize a carbon tax, of which the primary goal is to make gas more expensive, results in more expensive gas. I know that these guys aren't very bright, and they're blatantly pandering to get votes, but stuff like that literally makes my brain hurt. (As in yes, such extremely contradictory thoughts give me a slight headache).


They are politicians appealing to their base. Don't ascribe logic to the anti-TMX gang! I have talked to some of them and that makes my head hurt!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

There is no rationality/common sense in any of the anti-TMX gang out here, especially the 'Larry and Larry' show in Victoria, and the paid protestors from the USA.

Sags, gasoline is expensive in Vancouver for two reasons: taxes (provincial, transit surtax, carbon tax), and lack of sufficient domestic gasoline (some is imported as a special blend from Washington State refineries that get their oil via tankers coming in along the BC coast). 

The 'Larry and Larry' show can fix that by allowing a TM expansion and adding to the Burnaby refinery. The 'Larry and Larry' show say refinery expansions should be in AB but that defies all the economics and logic in the world that say one ALWAYS locates refineries on tidewater and/or as close to end markets as possible. They really don't want to admit their use of fossil fuels nor do they want the carbon load that would come from refining oil in BC. IOW. 'Larry and Larry' make themselves look as stupid as their namesake characters on Newhart.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

MrMatt said:


> Typical leftie, the level of cognitive dissonance is amazing.
> They're actively working to ban oil and gas, making it as difficult and expensive as possible. Then they wonder why the price went up.
> 
> I am actually surprised that they didn't realize a carbon tax, of which the primary goal is to make gas more expensive, results in more expensive gas. I know that these guys aren't very bright, and they're blatantly pandering to get votes, but stuff like that literally makes my brain hurt. (As in yes, such extremely contradictory thoughts give me a slight headache)
> I heard that they don't actually think logically, but sheesh, this is pretty extreme.


The carbon tax was created by the BC Liberals (a right-leaning party) that were in power before the NDP.

It was initially set at $10/tonne, then raised to $30/tonne while they were in power... which translates to 7.2 cents on a litre of gas.

The NDP has increased the tax by $5/tonne, or 1.6 cents a litre, so they're only responsible for a small portion of it. The current price of gas in BC has virtually nothing to do with the NDP.

The federal government has imposed a price of $50 per tonne of CO2 by 2022, so BC's carbon tax will increase by $5 each year to meet this target.

As for whether the expanded Trans-Mountain pipeline would lead to lower gas prices, it's debatable. In fact, Kinder Morgan said in a statement that they expect no impact on gas prices, either positive or negative. Some analysts have suggested the extra capacity would reduce supply pressures and lead to lower prices, but others point to increased toll rates (required to pay for the pipeline) that would wipe out any potential savings.

Vancouver gas is expensive due to a multitude of different taxes, not the least of which is the 18.5 cents/litre levied by Translink. You can drive to Abbotsford and buy gas for 117.9 at Costco right now (no Translink tax).

Lack of refining capacity is another contributing issue, of course...


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

kcowan said:


> They are politicians appealing to their base. Don't ascribe logic to the anti-TMX gang! I have talked to some of them and that makes my head hurt!


...me too kcowan. so true.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> Vancouver gas is expensive due to a multitude of different taxes, not the least of which is the 18.5 cents/litre levied by Translink. You can drive to Abbotsford and buy gas for 117.9 at Costco right now (no Translink tax).
> 
> Lack of refining capacity is another contributing issue, of course...


Horgan knows that of course so he is really discrediting himself when he says such hypocritical things. You are correct of course in that TM Expansion by itself will not drop gasoline prices but it will help if BC would simply refine* more of their own needs and that is entirely possible with a TM expansion. Also, to the extent there is any surplus gasoline left at Edmonton refineries, that could too, of course, be also shipped in the current TM line if other crude could be diverted to the new TM Expansion. BC politics simply is in denial about viable solutions.

* not ever likely to happen since the investment won't produce a profit, especially if BC politics continues its penchant for putting the squeeze on hydrocarbon products. Can you imagine Parkland Fuel remotely considering expanding capacity at their Burnaby refinery? Investors will take their money elsewhere where they are more welcomed.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

I think he's painted himself into a difficult corner, politically speaking. He's pissing off a lot of Albertans and some BCers by obstructing the pipeline, but he'd be pissing off the Greens, natives, and a fair number of NDP voters if he reneged on his promise to fight it. Maybe his comments on gas prices are hypocritical, but I think some of the rhetoric in this thread is a bit over the top.

Besides, I suspect this whole issue is going to blow over with minimal damage to Horgan's reputation. The supreme court will most likely rule against the BC government's reference case on regulating the flow of bitumen. Horgan will say "Well, I did what I could." The pipeline will get built and the whole issue will fade to the back of mind for most voters.

Even if the supreme court rules that BC has the authority to regulate the flow of bitumen, that doesn't mean the expansion can't proceed (though it does complicate things).

At the end of the day, the pipeline is just one issue... 

https://vancouversun.com/news/polit...rovincial-party-among-british-columbians-poll



> The poll found that 42 per cent of British Columbians believe “housing, homelessness and poverty” is the most important issue facing the province today. That proportion climbs to 49 per cent among residents aged 18 to 34, 47 per cent among Metro Vancouverites and 45 per cent among women.
> 
> Health care and the economy/jobs are tied at 11 per cent, followed by the environment at 10 per cent, *energy/pipelines at nine per cent* and crime/public safety at seven per cent.


John Horgan among Canada's most popular premiers: https://vancouversun.com/news/local...nadas-most-popular-premiers-according-to-poll


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I agree Horgan has done some positive things for sure that I can agree with, but also some socialist things specifically that rally his base NDPers. Thus, am not surprised at his popularity rating, nor what are the important issues, again influenced by the vast majority in the Lower Mainland. Time will tell in a few years but as of now, the Liberals are pretty invisible.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes the only thing I have against Horgan is his taking the carbon taxes into general revenues. Also his refusing to acknowledge that the taxes do nothing to reduce CO2. He is the object lesson in the useless nature of CO2 taxes having had 10 years of actual experience.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> Time will tell in a few years but as of now, the Liberals are pretty invisible.


True...I need to remind myself that the BC Liberal Party is a very different "Liberal" compared to the Federal Liberal party. The BC liberals are further right in their policies, if i am not mistaken.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

dubmac said:


> True...I need to remind myself that the BC Liberal Party is a very different "Liberal" compared to the Federal Liberal party. The BC liberals are further right in their policies, if i am not mistaken.


They are not Liberal in nature at all. They are so center, or just right of center, they make the real Conservative party entirely invisible (virtual non-entity). They have proven to be good stewards of BC long term, but have to be thrown out occasionally to get rid of deadwood, graft and privilege just like any party. The Liberals actually got more seats (43) than the NDP at 41, but the Greens at 3 made a deal with the NDP with a noose around Horgan. The NDP has a real shot for a majority in 2021 if the Liberals can't get their act together.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

kcowan said:


> Yes the only thing I have against Horgan is his taking the carbon taxes into general revenues. Also his refusing to acknowledge that the taxes do nothing to reduce CO2. He is the object lesson in the useless nature of CO2 taxes having had 10 years of actual experience.


Yeah... my pet peeve is provincial governments siphoning everything into general revenue.

The carbon tax certainly isn't going to reduce CO2 on its own, it would have to be much higher than $50/tonne to change consumer behavior. The proceeds from the tax could be used to reduce CO2 emissions... lots of options there. BC still offers rebates for electric vehicle purchase, but I'm not sure what other programs might exist.

I'm not totally against the carbon tax. I was against it when BC was the only province with the tax, because it put us at an economic disadvantage with the rest of the country. The feds moving toward a countrywide price on carbon gives it more legitimacy in my view, even if it is still mainly a symbolic gesture.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

There is an excellent article in the Sat G&M, BC section, on the TMP decision. It parses out much of what the author's consider to be main consequences expected from the anticipated Federal Gov't approval for the P/L on Tuesday. required reading.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

nathan79 said:


> The carbon tax was created by the BC Liberals (a right-leaning party) that were in power before the NDP.
> 
> It was initially set at $10/tonne, then raised to $30/tonne while they were in power... which translates to 7.2 cents on a litre of gas.
> 
> ...


They've launched an all out attack on gas and oil, then they're shocked that gas and oil is expensive.

I wouldn't invest in supplying BC with gas, because they don't want it.
They've had a succession of politicians at all levels push anti oil and gas initiatives.
As an investor, I would not invest in anything that supplies BC, unless it was being done at a premium to overcome the risks inherent in working in a politically hostile environment.

Why would anyone build a refinery to supply BC, when they're hiking taxes and spending billions to kill that market.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The legacy problems of the TM pipeline are concerning. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/coldwater-trans-mountain-pipeline-spill-response-1.5176102


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Still listening to the chest thumping, but cabinet has approved. 
Unfortunately CBC livefeed has some french translator talking over the announcement occuring in english (wtf?).

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-trans-mountain-trudeau-cabinet-decision-1.5180269

Better link here: http://www.cpac.ca/en/direct/cpac4/...kes-announcement-on-future-of-trans-mountain/


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The pipeline is projected to generate $500 million a year in profits.

Andrew Scheer said he would build it and then sell it to private industry,

I would rather the government build it and sell it to the CPPIB for the benefit of all Canadians.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

So? 
Justin Trudeau & Bill Morneau just said they would sell it as well - this matters because JT is the prime minister for a few more months.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> I would rather the government build it and sell it to the CPPIB for the benefit of all Canadians.


 As a partial owner of this, I want the government to eventually sell it to the highest bidder. Why should the taxpayer subsidize anyone?


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

sags said:


> I would rather the government build it and sell it to the CPPIB for the benefit of all Canadians.


This isn't the Soviet Union. The government has no business owning or operating anything that the private sector can manage itself.

ltr


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Business had the opportunity to buy it, but didn't want it.

If we sell to business we recover our costs but would give up all future profits.

If we sell to the CPPIB we recover our costs AND keep all future profits. The CPPIB operates outside the influence of government.

The CPPIB owns all kinds of assets and infrastructure, and will certainly be doing the due diligence on the possibilities.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

sags said:


> ...I would rather the government build it and sell it to the CPPIB for the benefit of all Canadians.


Have you really thought this through? Do you really want the government telling CPPIB what they should buy? The only way to properly establish the FMV of the pipeline is to put it on the market and see what the share price brings. It would not surprise me if CPPIB, after doing its own independent analysis, would buy some shares. But I'm not sure the CPPIB would (or should) want to be the sole owner, because that attracts a lot more risk and liability for the success or failure of the company.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

The VERY last thing that I want the CPPIB to get involved with is a government project of any kind. I want them hands off and I want them to make independent investment decisions.

The CPPIB has enjoyed a stellar record since the Paul Martin days when the CPP plan was revised and the CPPIB was made much more independent and more accountable.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

When the govt puts it up for sale, if the CPPIB is interested, they are surely as welcome to bid on it as anyone else. I want the govt to get the most money possible for the sale, and I only want CPPIB to bid on it if they think it's a good investment at the price. Mandating it be sold to CPPIB seems foolish. They might not want it.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fair enough...the CPPIB is quite capable of calculating the worth of the pipeline, just like they do for all other assets. 

They should be allowed to bid on it without any interference from any of the political parties.

Personally I would rather the CPPIB own the pipeline than some American or Chinese company.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

I do not care who owns it. As long as it is built, is operated in a safe manner, generates tax revenue, and adds to our GNP.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

sags said:


> Personally I would rather the CPPIB own the pipeline than some American or Chinese company.


Don't think you have to fear that. Can't imagine any foreign investor wanting to re-invest in Canada given the way business investment is treated here, at least not at a competitive price. The bigger risk is Ottawa willing to sell a partial interest to an indigenous consortium, essentially loaning them (or guaranteeing the loans) the funds at a lower than commercial price. I have no aversion at all to an indigenous consortium having a stake, as long as it is a fully competitive stake on commercial terms. None of this will happen though until, at a minimum, construction is well underway, and maybe not until as late as it going into service.

BTW, Horgan made an *** of himself yesterday after the Ottawa announcement. He believes there will be no profit on this venture to channel to green initiatives (a shrewd move on Ottawa's part to mitigate fanatic anti-pipeliners a bit). Either he is extremely naive, or lying through his teeth, or Weaver really does have a noose around Horgan's family jewels. Horgan should know full well that NEB tolls and tariffs are set to provide the project owner with a return on investment, both the equity and debt portions. That has been the case with inter-provincial monopoly pipelines since the dawn of Canada's industry.

Given 60% of BC residents support the pipeline and only 29% oppose it, 11% undecided, the noose around Horgan's you-know-what must be awfully tight.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Horgan isn't the only critic who thinks the government may be wasting a lot of taxpayer money on a white elephant project.

There were a couple of people on Bloomberg, including a professor from the University of Alberta, who concluded there is no market in Asia for heavy Canadian oil.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

It is useful to know that trolls don't care about facts and don't mind displaying their ignorance or stupidity to the world.

One-third of Trans Mountain crude exports went to China in 2018: StatsCan_ - China took 6.3 million barrels, at a value of $442 million. Another 648,000 barrels went to South Korea ($51 million) and 508,000 barrels went to Hong Kong ($46 million). A small amount also went to Thailand._

Anti-pipeline activists claim there is no demand for Alberta crude in China, but the IEA and IHS Mar kit say otherwise_“By 2040 China is the largest net oil importer in history,” the IEA projects. Asia and the Middle East will account for “a wave” of new refining capacity: 17 million barrels per day by 2040._

Canadian crude Gulf Coast exports rise as Venezuelan gap is filled: trade sources_ - The tanker New Dream, chartered by commodities trader Mercuria Energy Group, departed on June 16 from Galveston loaded with more than 1 million barrels of heavy Canadian crude, and is headed to Asia, according to vessel tracking data from Refinitiv Eikon and ClipperData... Another 3 million barrels of Canadian crude are due to be exported from the Gulf Coast by June 30...“Refiners probably over-imported a bit” of heavy crudes, said a trader familiar with the exports, noting the resulting surplus and a larger discount to the U.S. benchmark for the Canadian crude “opens the arb (arbitrage) for export.”_. 

The latter by the way means that due to lack of export capacity, Canada is a price taker while the US profits by exporting excess of our oil to Asia.

But as noted, trolls are either don't know or don't care (i.e they only post to get their jollies).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Take it up with the professor........

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/video/n...mountain-pipeline-approval-professor-~1710949


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Ah well there's a serious addition to your credibility.
Gordon Laxer, UofA Sociology, now Parkland Institute. Fully qualified to take a salary and pension from the public teat, then travel around the country disabusing people of something that he knows nothing about. 
Right up there with your other heroes and credible experts such as suzuki, dicaprio and young.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A good example of a professor who, like most, have a hard-wired bias, and have too, to justify their specific niche (existence). Not a bad thing as long as everyone understands where each of these folks come from. Remember PhD can mean 'piled higher and deeper'. The truth of the matter is China has wanted our oil for some time given their purchase of heavy oil and bitumen producers, e.g. Husky, Nexen, and would be very happy to have a confident supply of dilbit. The fact that they have not yet gotten tired of our ineptitude in getting a pipeline in the ground is the ultimate in patience. 

This is a case of the media (BNN Bloomberg) being relatively incompetent and ultimately giving fringe elements perceived credibility. Sags, it may behoove you to consider doing appropriate background checks on voices you seem to latch on too to try and make a case for your position. There are no facts to support 'no market in China' for our dilbit.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are going to be very busy criticizing the expertise of those who say there is no Asian market for Canadian heavy oil. A lot of people are stepping forward after the approval.

_Past and present exports don’t suggest a significant Asian interest in Canadian crude oil, according to David Huntley, a professor emeritus of physics at Simon Fraser University who studies tanker activity at Westridge Terminal.

His observations show a total of 151 tankers have loaded at Westridge since 2014, but only 19 went to China. Ten of those tankers shipped out in late 2018, which Huntley explained as the Chinese taking advantage of very low bitumen prices at the time.

“If a higher price were available in China, most or all 151 would have gone there,” he wrote in an email to Star Calgary.

Two loaded tankers went to South Korea from Westridge in 2018, his report shows, but Port of Vancouver reports don’t show any crude exports to the country between 2008 and 2017. India saw a small shipment of around 60,301 tonnes in 2013.

At B.C.’s Westridge Terminal, where tankers are loaded with oil from the existing Trans Mountain pipeline, space on the dock for overseas shipments has far exceeded the supply of oil for the last 13 years.

_

https://www.thestar.com/calgary/201...s-case-may-not-be-as-solid-as-it-appears.html


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Of course there is lots of spare dock capacity at the Westridge Terminal for tankers. TM cannot supply enough oil to be exported. Preferential shipping goes to the Burnaby refinery and Washington State refineries. If TM had more capacity, there would be more exports... .duh! That SF dude has no concept of what a distribution/shipping pattern would look like studying existing traffic.

All that TM and Westridge can currently do is ship spot cargoes to various destinations from time to time since there is no ability to contract for regular weekly or monthly shipments to any one country or refinery because there is insufficient supply. Ignorance is really shown when a comment like 'if a higher price was available in China' is made. That is not how the market works. No one pays more than necessary. The price paid is the same as for any other supply adjusted for quality. What the producer gets, is that price less shipping costs. When TMX goes into service, a regular shipping pattern will develop. It will be China, possibly South Korea/Singapore, and almost certainly California which is crude short.

Jeepers murphy! Stop listening to those that don't know much of anything about the business.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

sags said:


> You are going to be very busy criticizing the expertise of those who say there is no Asian market for Canadian heavy oil. A lot of people are stepping forward after the approval ...


Makes you wonder if they are delusional or have some sort of bias.

There's constant talk about needing to refine more in Canada despite years of data showing Canada refines more than is used domestically. For some reason, people don't seem to want to acknowledge that Canada has a distribution problem, not a lack of refining capacity problem. 

(Though with Quebec now receiving Alberta oil over Enbridge Line 9, Suncor is reported to be more interested in building a coker so that more bitumen can be processed.)


Cheers


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> When TMX goes into service, a regular shipping pattern will develop. It will be China, possibly South Korea/Singapore, and almost certainly California which is crude short.
> 
> Jeepers murphy! Stop listening to those that don't know much of anything about the business.



i for one would not be so sure of anything. Expanded transMountain is a very complicated high stakes bet, with countless different aspects each of which could go wrong. So far, everything considered, it looks like canada is inching forward towards TMP II success. Progress in baby steps. I've believed this for years now, way back before first NEB approval.

i "think" but do not really know for sure that china will be a buyer of alberta bitumen via TMP II. As a matter of fact i think it is likely that china herself does not yet know for sure, at this point in time, whether she will be a buyer of alberta bitumen some day.

btw david anderson, a former federal liberal minister of the environment from a vancouver riding, is another who went on record a few days ago to predict that china will *not* buy alberta dilbit. His reasons were debatable. 

let's also keep in mind that steady progress is being made with alberta dilbit transport to quebec. The pipeline extension from montreal to valero's refinery opposite quebec city - it's transporting dilbit from enbridge line 9 terminal in montreal east - started up in january 2015. 

if one looks behind the politicians & the protestors making noise in headline news, it's apparent that slow progress is happening both east & west. Baby steps.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It's only a matter of the TMX getting built that China will build more cokers to take THEIR supply produced by Chinese companies in Alberta. It is their strategy elsewhere in the world. Control production if possible to meet their needs. You read it here first. Let's chat again in circa 2022.

I will have to double check but California refineries built for ultra heavy oil production from the Central Valley needs replacement supply to offset declining heavy production in places like Belridge, Midway-Sunset and others. I was part of a team study some 25 years ago looking at future supply options for California refineries when ultra heavy oil production started to decline. Never mind light oil refineries needing to add supply sources to offset declining Alaska production. Interestingly, California preferred to have tanker imports than to have additional pipelines come from places like Texas.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> ... i "think" but do not really know for sure that china will be a buyer of alberta bitumen via TMP II. As a matter of fact i think it is likely that china herself does not yet know for sure, at this point in time, whether she will be a buyer of alberta bitumen some day.
> 
> btw david anderson, a former federal liberal minister of the environment from a vancouver riding, is another who went on record a few days ago to predict that china will *not* buy alberta dilbit. His reasons were debatable ...


If China doesn't know whether they want what is being produced by companies they own in Canada - I have to think Anderson can't know either. :biggrin:


Keep in mind that it was touted in April 2018 how Asian markets were a "myth" made up by those that wanted TMP expansion. The proof cited was that for 2017 most shipments were to the US, with China taking less than a tanker's worth.

Considering China by the end of 2018 it is reported to have bought 29.8% of the 22 million barrels shipped, with South Korea taking 6.7% - the "proof" seems at best suspect. With China making infrastructure construction a priority, apparently the bitumen is also valued as it is used in everything from roads to runways and roofs.




humble_pie said:


> ... let's also keep in mind that steady progress is being made with alberta dilbit transport to quebec. The pipeline extension from montreal to valero's refinery opposite quebec city - it's transporting dilbit from enbridge line 9 terminal in montreal east - started up in january 2015.


As mentioned earlier in the thread, Suncor is reported to be enthusiastic about building cokers in Quebec again, with line 9 giving a supply.

It will also be interesting to see if the legal difficulties in Portland, Maine that are preventing the Montreal-Portland pipeline from being reversed get cleared up. With the pipeline shipping little from Portland to Montreal shipments (described by the Portland paper as shutdown), the plan is to reverse it so that Alberta oil can be shipped to Portland for loading onto tankers. Judges have ruled for the city and for the company so the case is still winding it's way through the courts.

It probably doesn't fit the "refine more in Canada" or the "only Canada blocks pipelines" narrative.




AltaRed said:


> It's only a matter of the TMX getting built that China will build more cokers to take THEIR supply produced by Chinese companies in Alberta. It is their strategy elsewhere in the world. Control production if possible to meet their needs ...


+1.



Cheers


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is almost hilarious, if it wasn't so sad, how so many talking heads have come out of the woodwork pontificating how there is no Asian (perhaps better said, Pacific Rim) market for TMX dilbit. They don't know their a-holes from a hole in the ground. Shippers have made big bets by signing long term 'ship or pay' contracts for long term space on TMX. They know where their markets are AND how and when to move what they intend to ship. They are the ones the media should be talking to in stead of air-headed professors and analysts who have likely never seen a barrel of dilbit. There's nothing here to talk about folks. There will be a ready market competitive at the refinery gate adjusted for quality with every other supply source. It is the way the global oil market has always been.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> The bigger risk is Ottawa willing to sell a partial interest to an indigenous consortium, essentially loaning them (or guaranteeing the loans) the funds at a lower than commercial price. I have no aversion at all to an indigenous consortium having a stake, as long as it is a fully competitive stake on commercial terms.




there's no risk whatsoever. Loans to indigenous nations along the energy routes to help them gain partnership interests are a done deal. This has been obvious in all major canadian media for several years now, to any observer who knows how to look.

here is just one more article spelling out how indigenous nations have been/are still being won over. There's almost no doubt now that the Liberal transMountain strategy is winning this strategic waypoint along the overall TMP challenge.

journo david staples writes in the edmonton journal that the recruitment into partial ownership of initially opposed indigenous nations in alberta & BC constitutes "a seismic shift in canadian oil history."

staples goes so far as to compare the historic importance of New TMP II to the 1947 discovery of oil at leduc, alberta, although others may not agree with his opinion (i'm one who wouldn't agree with this opinion) (on the historic importance scale i'd compare New TMP II to the building of the transCanada pipeline more than half a century ago)

still, TMP II is a gripping storybook drama that's turning out for the win, right in front of our eyes. Drum roll!

https://edmontonjournal.com/busines...ng-blow-to-u-s-funded-anti-oil-sands-campaign

what we don't know - there have been no leaks regarding this aspect that i know of - are the financing details. It will not surprise to find one or more canadian chartered banks plus other giant financial underwriters participating in the deal along with the federal government, possibly also some big pension plans, even some provincial governments.

big challenges still to overcome are construction of the expanded pipeline & eventual sale of the TMP enterprise to private concerns.

this is no time to quibble about commercial interest rates imho. Interest rates are at record lows, not expected to rise any time soon. Meanwhile there's absolutely no going backwards with transMountain II, the whole of canada needs to unite in a positive fashion and push TMP through as rapidly as possible.

my takeaway is that we are approaching the stage where the few remaining negative TMP critics are going to start feeling embarassed about raising their voices. No point wasting energy dumping on BC's premier & other die-hard naysayers. Let's concentrate on the positives, we are seeing a lot of them now.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

good news. Two out of the six indigenous nations still opposing transMountain pipeline have pulled out of the final Court of Appeal litigation, citing beneficial deals they've recently been able to negotiate with the federal government.

the appeal hearing is set for december. Coming up very soon. Remaining to contest TMP II are two indigenous nations in vancouver - including the powerful Squamish nation - plus a small band in Merritt BC & another small coalition of bands in the fraser valley.

the federal gummint has not publicized the negotiations with indigenous nations. These are thought to include beneficial terms such as employlment, training for skilled employment, partial pipeline ownership, help in establishing new businesses on first nation territory.

it's thought that, where partial partnership or ownership is concerned, the federal gummint will help to finance the indigenous deals. Myself i would imagine that one or more canadian chartered banks are involved, since most have had significant aboriginal lending divisions for a decade or more. 

if all goes well, TMP II will be a win-win-win situation. Canada, alberta, BC, many indigenous nations will all benefit in new ways. Particularly for indigenous nations, partial pipeline ownership pro-rata, pipeline employment, pipeline royalties & other business development assistance offer opportunities never before seen. Negotiating these is the opportunity of a lifetime for a small aboriginal nation.

keep in mind, that the rights of indigenous nations to refuse TMP II are enshrined in the supreme court decision, under former chief justice Beverley mcLachlin, to grant veto privileges & other stakeholder privileges to first nations that had never ceded their territory.

in addition the United Nations by formal resolution has backed the right of aboriginal peoples the world over to claim sovereignty on their ancestral land.

these legal blocks have slowed the final stage of TMP II preparation to molasses. Ottawa has been close-mouthed about the many negotiations with indigenous bands all along the TMP II route; but negotiations have been quietly proceeding & all except for the four holdout nations mentioned above have been successful.

my bet says the holdout nations will also withdraw their opposition. Sooner or later.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry...er_trending_qeesnbnu0l8&utm_campaign=trending


.


----------



## dubmac (Jan 9, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> Remaining to contest TMP II are two indigenous nations in vancouver - including the powerful Squamish nation - plus a small band in Merritt BC & another small coalition of bands in the fraser valley.
> 
> it's thought that, where partial partnership or ownership is concerned, the federal gummint will help to finance the indigenous deals. Myself i would imagine that one or more canadian chartered banks are involved, since most have had significant aboriginal lending divisions for a decade or more.
> .


Squamish Nation frequently hits the headlines here in the Vancouver west side news and provincially. Not long ago, converations on development of the The Jericho Lands took place, and the leaders of the Squamish Nation seemed quite engaged - but very specific - on how any development(s) take place. (Jericho used to be a federal gov't Ministry of Defence base - it is quite simply - a very plum piece of real estate, on the west side overlooking Jericho Beach, parks and views). Squamish Nations is also involved in developing other portions of their ancestral lands - Burrard Street Bridge area being another. I don't know what the numbers are that are involved - but these two developments alone are big money. - but we are looking at a slow process to actually get things done. 


If the leaders are as motivated to solve TMP as they were to solve some of the development applicaitons here on the west side - then I suspect there will be a silver lining to TMP.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

dubmac said:


> Squamish Nation frequently hits the headlines here in the Vancouver west side news and provincially. Not long ago, converations on development of the The Jericho Lands took place, and the leaders of the Squamish Nation seemed quite engaged - but very specific - on how any development(s) take place. (Jericho used to be a federal gov't Ministry of Defence base - it is quite simply - a very plum piece of real estate, on the west side overlooking Jericho Beach, parks and views). Squamish Nations is also involved in developing other portions of their ancestral lands - Burrard Street Bridge area being another. I don't know what the numbers are that are involved - but these two developments alone are big money. - but we are looking at a slow process to actually get things done.
> 
> 
> If the leaders are as motivated to solve TMP as they were to solve some of the development applicaitons here on the west side - then I suspect there will be a silver lining to TMP.





there's been fascinating media coverage recently of the gigantic burrard street RE development by squamish nation as you mention. Here's just one report among many:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/brit...nation-development-gift-to-the-city-1.5351953

the buildings don't conform to municipal building code because, being built on first nation territory, they don't have to conform. Missing for example are parking facilities & a formal proportion of housing units dedicated to low-income persons.

the globe & mail, covering the same story, noted that affordable housing in vancouver is already desperately past the crisis stage. The media said that if decent housing can be built & offered at affordable cost without parking facilities in a city that urgently needs it, then so be it. Better than sleeping in parks & back alleys, globe said.

globe also pointed out that squamish nation will indeed be housing needy indigenous individuals & families in its new RE units; the difference is that the nation will be coordinating this operation & it will be totally outside the white man's municipal vancouver system involving social workers, emergency shelters & housing authorities.

turning back to TMP II, this pipeline can bring advanced construction employment, permanent maintenance responsabilities plus royalties as well as new business opportunities to indigenous nations all along its route. There's more than a silver lining here. As with squamish nation business & RE development in downtown vancouver, a whole new era is beckoning. It's exciting.

squamish nation will likely negotiate some very tough terms in its favour before it cedes support to TMP II. But it will climb on board in the end i believe. Right now there's some effort to divert the hearing away from the federal Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. If successful this effort would mean another lengthy delay for TMP II. Although it's possible the SC could quickly refuse to hear the case.


----------

