# How I came to love pipelines



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After watching Senate hearings on the safety of rail transport, I have changed my mind on developing pipelines.

I still believe there is a great danger of pipeline leaks, and don't have a lot of confidence in the pipeline companies exercising responsible behavior, but after watching what is going on in rail transport............I was astounded to learn a few things from the President of the Teamster union who is sounding warning bells as loud as he can.

1) Rail companies are not obliged to tell communities what is on trains that pass by their homes and businesses every day. 
The reasoning is that if the general public knew what was on the trains there would be an outrage and protests.

2) Trains are getting much longer. They are now pulling hundreds of cars. The engineers can't even see the end of the train. The tracks were not built to carry the extra weight and the trains are so long that they sway and bounce while being pulled along. It is a dangerous situation. The train crews know it, and the companies know it......but there is more profit by making the trains longer.

3) The rail cars were not built to carry the current contents safely.

4) The train crews have been instructed that in the event of an "event", they are to walk to the back of the trains to see what the damage is. They are not provided with a manifest or protective gear. Basically they walk back and see if they die or not. This is a plan ?

5) There are no regulations on how many hours a train crew may be scheduled to work. As the rail companies laid off workers, they forced other workers to work longer and longer hours. Worker fatigue is a prevalent and dangerous condition.

6) Rail routes travel through the heart of many urban areas, which exposes millions of Canadians to an accident. The routes were not envisioned to carry the current highly dangerous cargoes. Emergency plans are local, but the local authorities don't even know what is on the trains. They have to contact the rail companies after an accident to learn of the contents of the specific trains and rail cars.

Many of the Senators expressed alarm at what they were told. The facts were presented with documentation to prove them.

It is an odd situation when the union is telling the government........don't let the rail companies give us this work.

I have now become convinced rail transport has enough problems to deal with without adding endless numbers of oil cars to the list.

I now believe that unless we are going to leave the oil in the ground.......we best get to building pipelines to transport it.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

If this is the US, then those facts may be correct. There are tighter regulations in Canada BUT rail transport is still exposed to the elements, moving parts are more susceptible to failure than static parts, AND there is a signficant human factor in the equation. So yes, pipeline transport is considerably safer than rail transport.

FWIW, I dispute your point 2). There is no added weight to the train with greater length. Every set of wheels transmits its weight to its local area. !00 cars over 1 km is no different than 200 cars over 2km. What does happen is more thrust is required from the engines and there is more lateral force to the rails and ties on curves so that there is more strain on everything. Railroads mitigate that issue by inserting additional engines within the train length, e.g. at half point, to distribute thrust needs more evenly. It is a common occurrence in steeper terrain for over 100 years. In the Rockies, helper engines are added into the train to get over the continental divide and other steep sections in BC.

For point 3), the issue is being decreased somewhat by newer rail tank cars with double walls, etc... .just like double hulled ships. That should have been standard practice since 'forever'. Still, a tank car derailing off the tracks and plunging into the Fraser Canyon is not likely to stay together no matter what. People would be astounded at how many trains, CP and CN, traverse the Fraser Canyon every day, and how many communities downstream likely rely on the Fraser for drinking water. I imagine that is the case for a lot of rivers, especially in the topographical challenged West where train tracks next to the rivers are the only feasible way to move trains.

My understanding is Canadian train crews have a manifest of what cars are carrying what goods, and in Canada at least, there are regulations on crew hours....albeit I understand they are still far too liberal.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

sags said:


> I now believe that unless we are going to leave the oil in the ground.......we best get to building pipelines to transport it.


In order for the Canadian oil companies to be profitable, they do need pipelines. Canada as a whole will also benefit. But those who would have the pipelines in their backyards, don't care about company profits or our overall economy. Just like those who protest having windmills built in their "backyards". But can you blame them?

Seems like a no-win for pipelines. Pipeline companies seem to overcoming their own growth problems by buying up existing smaller pipeline companies. But that doesn't help the oil companies.

Rail will no doubt be only choice for some time.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

agent99 said:


> ...those who would have the pipelines in their backyards, don't care about company profits or our overall economy. Just like those who protest having windmills built in their "backyards". But can you blame them?... Rail will no doubt be only choice for some time.


The protesters aren't landowners, they are well-funded 'professional' protesters, unknowledgeable anti-business types, and neer-do-well potheads. 
Backyard? I grew up with a pipeline in our front yard. It ran 200ft the entire length of our front lawn, under the driveway, the beehives, our outdoor skating rink and the creek we swam in. You would never have known it was there. It is still there, regularly inspected, and ocassionally excavated and serviced.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

I discounted the accuracy of your post when I read this part.."I was astounded to learn a few things from the *President of the Teamster union* who is sounding warning bells as loud as he can."


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> The protesters aren't landowners, they are well-funded 'professional' protesters, unknowledgeable anti-business types, and neer-do-well potheads.


Pleased to know that that is OnlyYourOpinion


----------



## doctrine (Sep 30, 2011)

I love pipelines that are already in the ground. There aren't going to be many new ones in the future, turning them into virtual monopolies, with a massive cost advantage over any temporary alternative (trucks/trains).


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

doctrine said:


> I love pipelines that are already in the ground. There aren't going to be many new ones in the future, turning them into virtual monopolies, with a massive cost advantage over any temporary alternative (trucks/trains).


100% agree. If we can just get oil back to a comfortable $70-80 then oil sands will be happy as well.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Everyone who heats their home with natural gas has a pipeline running down the street in front of their house and another one running from the street pipeline into their house, terminating at the furnace. Albeit, they are smaller, but they are still pipelines. I wonder how many "protesters" fall into that category...especially those who live in their parent's basement in a room likely a few feet away from that pipeline.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

These same protesters against pipelines are the same people that receive natural gas in their home for their basement fireplace. I've tried to talk to these people but they simply don't understand....

Hopefully projects like Energy East move forward in the next decade - should be a no-brainer.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

bass player said:


> Everyone who heats their home with natural gas has a pipeline running down the street in front of their house and another one running from the street pipeline into their house, terminating at the furnace. Albeit, they are smaller, but they are still pipelines. I wonder how many "protesters" fall into that category...especially those who live in their parent's basement in a room likely a few feet away from that pipeline.


Personally, I would rather not have a gas pipeline running into our home. There is a main line underground up at highway about 150 ft away. Can't do anything about that or do we have any concern. But, when we upgraded the heating in our all-electric home, we chose to go with high efficiency heatpump even although gas furnace installation cost may have been slightly less expensive. Just don't like the idea of gas in or near home. 

Doesn't seem that gas pipelines are considered as big a concern as oil pipelines - But they should be - see below! More concerns about crude which is quite toxic. Diluent (Naptha or NG condensates) used for thinning bitumen from tar sands is another type of line to be concerned about. I can understand communities not wanting these pipelines in their backyard. A no-win, because the oil/gas has to be moved somehow. Just have to engineer them to be ultra safe. Same with rail & tankers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW9sW_fJqOo


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

> Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney calls in to The Danielle Smith Show to talk about his speech last night at the University of Calgary and to give Prime Minister Trudeau some advice on the politics of pipelines.


10 minutes


https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalk770Calgary/?nr


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.
i *was* going to post that i'm all in favour of protestors having their public say because this is an excellent way to discover what some of the environmental & economic risks & setbacks might be.

but then the natPost came out with an article yesterday saying that trudeau is expected to approve at least one pipeline this year & the odds are good that the first one to get the seal of approval will be Kinder Morgan's trans-mountain retrofit, carrying alberta tar sands oil to the port of burnaby BC.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...ns-trans-mountain-in-the-lead?__lsa=4b25-ca3d


the 4 BC mayors - including the mayors of vancouver & burnaby - won't be happy; but i'll be happy. It'll be a fine compromise decision imho.


.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

zylon said:


> 10 minutes
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalk770Calgary/?nr


Great interview, thanks!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

zylon said:


> 10 minutes
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/NewsTalk770Calgary/?nr




mulBlarney sure hasn't lost his touch. Build a few pipelines & that'll be six million new jobs in canada ! it'll be the biggest opportunity for nation-building & leadership grandstanding that the new prime minister can ever hope to get !!

the mulBlarney knows all about successful nation-building & leadership grandstanding because he was the prime minister who, back in the day, successfully stick-handled the north american free trade deal !!!


in reality, ottawa with trudeau at the helm appears to have quietly set things up already for Kinder Morgan. The news - not the blarney but the hard news - was in the natPost article two days ago.


PS a lot of folks are going to take issue with that 6-million-new-jobs estimate. Not even the fiercest of the pro-Keystone lobbyists in the US of A were ever talking new pipeline employment figures like 6 million new jobs.


.




.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It sounds like the same malarkey Muroney was spinning about free trade creating millions of new jobs. 

They never materialized and Canada lost a lot of jobs due to a trade deal with partners who cheat with impunity.

We do need a pipeline for our oil to reach markets, but it would be a good result if it restored past levels of employment in the oil industry.

Like other major industries, such as the auto industry, the biggest job creation is in spin off jobs.

6 million new jobs............is just a ridiculous statement. Do we even have 6 million people working in Canada ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Some people should have more confidence in Justin Trudeau.

If Canada needs a pipeline, He is the leader who will get it done.

In a short period of time he has already completed many tasks the Harper government couldn't resolve.

The Syrian refugee program, expanding the CPP, changing the rules for EI, combining and improving child care benefits, restoring OAS age.

More is in the works..revamping the justice system including pardons, removing minimum sentencing, legalizing marijuana, among them.

Based on what he accomplished thus far, PM Trudeau is building a very comprehensive and outstanding resume of success.

Trudeau is more popular now than when he was elected, which is a rare accomplishment for politicians.

I have faith in his judgement and I think other Canadians do as well.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Some people should have more confidence in Justin Trudeau.
> 
> If Canada needs a pipeline, He is the leader who will get it done.
> 
> ...




sags you didn't mentioned the armed forces but a stunning re-engineering of canada's defence policy is going on.

interestingly, there were a few subtle signs that this was beginning under harper's conservative government. The changes we're hearing about now had their beginnings a number of years ago.

what this modern history is telling me is that the armed forces themselves have helped to initiate this new Next Level. The trade commissioner service & the career diplomats have also contributed.


.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It would be nice to keep ads for the Liberals out of threads such as these. WADR, mistruths in Sags' post.

That said, at least the appearance of consensus building does go further in getting stuff done than needlessly confrontational mechanisms. Let's hope the KM* expansion project will see the light of day, and we can find ways to throttle refined product supply to Montreal.

* Me thinks the Chinese president told JT in no uncertain terms to get his act together or his country would slap us with a lot of trade heartaches.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

* Dubious it went down that way. Respect is not something to ignore in international negotiations, China wouldn't disrespect our new leader in that fashion.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> It would be nice to keep ads for the Liberals out of threads such as these. WADR, mistruths in Sags' post.


when it's about conservative gummint accomplishments it's objective reportage, have i got that straight?

but when it's about liberal gummint accomplishments it's just pewling ads for the liberal party, is that right?





> Me thinks the Chinese president told JT in no uncertain terms to get his act together or his country would slap us with a lot of trade heartaches.


heads of state don't usually threaten each other at summit meetings. 

what has appeared in chinese foreign relations in recent years are small, individuated aggressive incidents.

_
china builds new islands in violation of the international law of the sea ...

the chinese foreign minister berates a canadian journalist for asking a question about human rights in china ...

china publishes & distributes a manual for the chinese shipping industry on how commercial container ships will be able to navigate sovereign canadian arctic waters after global warming thaws enough polar ice to allow year-round Northwest Passage sea traffic ...

china ostentatiously refuses to cooperate with US military in landing Air Force One with president obama on board at the recent G20 summit meeting in beijing ...
_
veteran china watchers are saying that these incidents are new, only seen over the past few years. Gone is the friendlier china of the 2008 summer Olympics era. I suppose one could say that gone, too, is the friendlier russia of the pre-2014 sochi Olympics era.


.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

humble_pie said:


> .
> i *was* going to post that i'm all in favour of protestors having their public say because this is an excellent way to discover what some of the environmental & economic risks & setbacks might be.
> 
> but then the natPost came out with an article yesterday saying that trudeau is expected to approve at least one pipeline this year & the odds are good that the first one to get the seal of approval will be Kinder Morgan's trans-mountain retrofit, carrying alberta tar sands oil to the port of burnaby BC.


During the campaign, Trudeau clarified his position on the pipelines through the Vancouver area. He was pretty clear a pipeline would be approved. His only beef was with diligence in planning.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Oh, I think there was a fairly firm conversation. First thing JT said later was that he'd review the foreign ownership restrictions with a view to relax what was 'hardened' after Harper tightened them upon the Nexen acquisition. China wants more oil from the oil sands and the only way it is going to get there is through a KM expansion. They are indeed tied together in not so subtle ways.

China has a stick to wield by throttling Canadian exports to China.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

Daydreaming and wondered if the areas that object to the pipeline additions (mainly Quebec) could be bypassed by using barges through the Great Lakes & Seaway. Apparently this has been considered in past but probably due to concerns about spills of the heavy tarsands oil, there was no progress. Refined petroleum products are presently shipped in large quantities. So perhaps only solution for heavy tarsands oil, is to build refineries in Alberta or at ends of existing pipelines where export shipping facilities exist or could be built.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

Does anyone know or have a source as to how much Alberta oilsands oil is actually refined into fuel for transportation (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel)?

A few months ago I heard a knowledgeable sounding fellow say that by far the largest portion of sands-oil is used for non-transportation purposes. Asphalt and plastic are two that come to mind, but he listed several other uses.

Unfortunately, I didn't make note of who he was or where to find the info.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Most oil sands 'crude' is made into refined products like gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. It depends on the amount of hydrocracking and/or coking that is applied to the bitumen. That said, there is a market for asphalt almost everywhere and so some 'refineries' do not "crack" all the heavy carbon molecules allowing asphalt to be produced. IOW, if the price is right, make asphalt over more expensive refined products. If there is no asphalt demand, e.g. in winter, then refine into gasoline and/or heating oil and/or bunker C (ship fuel) instead.

Plastics are made from petro-chemicals which in turn mostly come from crude components as they are cracked in refineries, and from natural gas, and natural gas liquids like ethane and propane. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrochemical


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

Excellent! Thanks for that, AltaRed.

Wow! what a "list of significant petrochemicals and their derivatives" in that link.

People who are expecting the planet to go hydrocarbon-less have no idea what they are asking.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

zylon said:


> People who are expecting the planet to go hydrocarbon-less have no idea what they are asking.


Yeppers. The vast majority doesn't get it. Even transportation where the obvious should be obvious..... aircraft, marine shipping, remote land travel (think arctic, jungles, deserts) to name just a few highly visible examples.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

zylon said:


> People who are expecting the planet to go hydrocarbon-less have no idea what they are asking.


Are there people who are expecting that? 

If you look around you, a large proportion of the products we use every day use hydrocarbons as raw materials somewhere in the manufacturing process. This is a GOOD use of hydrocarbons. However, when we take one of the purest sources of hydrocarbons - Natural gas, and then turn it into carbon dioxide by burning it to make electricity, then that is a BAD use of hydrocarbons. 

Even the food we eat is grown using fertilizer which is manufactured using hydrocarbons (It has been stated that 1/3 of greenhouse gas emissions come from agriculture)

So we won't get to a totally hydrocarbon free world in foreseeable future. But we do need to conserve the hydrocarbons we have so that they will still be available for future generations. One way is to stop burning them into CO2 for everyday use just as soon as we can.

May be best if don't build any new pipelines!


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

What do you use to generate reliable electricity when there are no hydro locations left? Nuclear? Where does peaking load come from for the 6-9am and 4-7pm peaks? And for A/C on hot summer days?


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

As usual we can pretend we will use unicorn farts to power our high standard of living mean while ruining our economy.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> What do you use to generate reliable electricity when there are no hydro locations left? Nuclear? Where does peaking load come from for the 6-9am and 4-7pm peaks? And for A/C on hot summer days?


Many of those against fossil fuels naively think wind and solar can power the world.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> What do you use to generate reliable electricity when there are no hydro locations left? Nuclear? Where does peaking load come from for the 6-9am and 4-7pm peaks? And for A/C on hot summer days?


In Ontario, 2/3 of power is from nuclear, ~20% from Hydro and ~10% from gas. On top of that we are tied to grid. When we have peak loads, we draw from grid. When we have too much, we sell to grid (admittedly at a loss).

Provided we have overcapacity (which we do), our existing production can pick up most of the peaks and if that is not enough, our neighbours provide the difference. We of course cannot control how they produce their power. We wouldn't have to debottleneck existing nuclear/hydro/other output very much to cut NG use further. 5% increase would decrease NG use by 40%. There is/has been a program to debottleneck, but we are still building additional NG stations  The conservatives say they would cancel those and add to nuclear, but don't seem to understand just how long that takes. And the Liberals are scrambling because our energy costs just too much.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Just remember Ontario peak periods are the same as those in neighbouring states. Peak power costs a small fortune compared to, for example, low load during the night. I suppose ON could continue to pay through the nose for peak power and dump renewables at a loss when the sun shines and the wind blows, but isn't that one of the reasons for the ON energy file screwup?

Wherever peak power comes from, it is and will continue to be expensive. More variable loading (peak) power will continue to be needed as renewables de-stabilize the grid due to their unpredictability. NG fired generation is going to be needed even more in the future than it is today... for all that standby need. Beyond lmited additional capacity yet to come from hydro (water TG sets), NG fired power is the only major supply that can be spooled up, or spooled down, quickly to meet variable loads. It is no more complex than that.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> Just remember Ontario peak periods are the same as those in neighbouring states.


 Obviously if NY has same weather and need to purchase power as us, it will come from elsewhere on the grid. Our southern neighbour has a diverse climate 



> NG fired power is the only major supply that can be spooled up, or spooled down, quickly to meet variable loads. It is no more complex than that.


Hydro can actually be spooled down more easily than NG fired thermal plants. But because NG is more expensive, those are the plants that gets spooled down as soon as possible. It takes some time to dissipate the stored steam energy in a thermal plant. 

Ontario has already reduced non-nuclear thermal power to a low amount, but there is room for further reduction. Some other provinces, like Alberta have very little hydro and no nuclear so are almost totally reliant on carbon based fuel including coal. I think I read somewhere that nuclear was being considered out there? Perhaps it should be!

Probably discussed in separate thread, but we also have an initiative in Ontario to reduce burning of natural gas used for home and commercial heating. We will be encouraged, at least for new construction, to move to geothermal or air source heat pumps plus other energy conservation measures. This to me is a smart thing to do. Conserve our NG for other uses and reduce GHG emissions at same time.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

All fine except there are not enough new hydro sites in ON to go around to manage peak needs by a substantial margin. The rubber has already hit the road with the heat the ON gov't is taking on obscene electrical rate increases over the past several years. They think they will appease the consumer (commercial, industrial and residential alike) by eliminating the PST part of the HST? 

Geothermal is nothing more than a boutique niche supply that has a very long payout. Heat pumps are likely already pricier than NG fired gas furnaces in the home. Back in 1984, I had a heat pump in Oakville and the efficiency crossover point was about 10F when I'd fire up the gas furnace instead. In Washington, DC, my heat pump couldn't keep the house warm on the coldest winter days. Don't know how heat pumps stack up these days though. Still need NG peaking plants though to feed those heat pumps.

NG is the only unlimited cost effective solution for peaking power regardless what the naysayers say. Let's have this conversation again in 10 years.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

agent99 said:


> Probably discussed in separate thread, but we also have an initiative in Ontario to reduce burning of natural gas used for home and commercial heating. We will be encouraged, at least for new construction, to move to geothermal or air source heat pumps plus other energy conservation measures. This to me is a smart thing to do. Conserve our NG for other uses and reduce GHG emissions at same time.


The way Ontario will "encourage" geothermal use is by making it mandatory to use either geothermal or electricity only for home heating. I feel sorry for those people who will be forced to pay untold millions for such stupid political decisions:

"bring in building code rules requiring all new homes by 2030 to be heated with electricity or geothermal systems"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...sweeping-climate-change-plan/article30029081/


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and biases. Agent99 obviously is dug in on a particular theme, economics notwithstanding. Time will tell. There is not much one can do about it until it is almost too late.

Added: Fortunately I think the ON Libs will have their bell rung before the real crisis of an unstable grid due to unbalanced supply, energy dependent industry and business leaving the province, and brownouts at peak periods but it may likely have to show strain first. They are dug in.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

AltaRed said:


> All fine except there are not enough new hydro sites in ON to go around


 new???? At last count I think we had 135 _existing_ hydro installations including a couple of very large ones  I wasn't suggesting they be used for load shedding except, if needed, for short period until thermal stations can be cut back.



AltaRed said:


> Geothermal is nothing more than a boutique niche supply that has a very long payout. Heat pumps are likely already pricier than NG fired gas furnaces in the home. Back in 1984, I had a heat pump in Oakville and the efficiency crossover point was about 10F when I'd fire up the gas furnace instead. In Washington, DC, my heat pump couldn't keep the house warm on the coldest winter days. Don't know how heat pumps stack up these days though.


Geothermal heat pumps are expensive to retrofit, but if they are installed at time home is built, they would be competitive with gas furnaces and reduce emissions. Used in many countries. They have COPs in the 3-6 range (300-600% efficiency compared with a HE gas furnace at 95%). The air source type you talk of are old technology and not suitable for our climate. We have a newer high efficiency type that after installation, halved our electrical energy usage. It heats our house with no supplemental heat down to -23C. On top of that, heat pumps also act as air conditioners in summer, so no need for additional equipment. This article provides a good explanation.



> NG is the only unlimited cost effective solution for peaking power regardless what the naysayers say.


 I don't disagree with that, but it's use should be minimized.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Statistically, pipelines are safer than any other mode of transport.

Natural gas pipelines have risk of fire or explosion in case of a leak, but no environmental contamination. (Natural gas is lighter than air, it rises and dissipates in the atmosphere rather than contaminating soil or water - no cleanup. Sure, if it leaks continually it's adding hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, but no one expects a pipeline leak to go undetected and unrepaired indefinitely.)

Oil pipelines are another kettle of fish with respect to environmental risk.

The elephants in the room with respect to pipelines to the west coast are:
- Is it environmentally sound to ship hydrocarbons to a country that is incapable of adhering to any known standards of emission controls?;
- Is it good stewardship of a non-renewable resource to ship hydrocarbons to a country where much of it will be p*****d into the atmosphere due to the lack of modern standards of energy efficiency?; and,
- Is it in Canada's long-term economic interest to ship hydrocarbons to the far east to supply industries that are rapidly displacing North American manufacturing?


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Answers to the 3 questions:

1. If we don't, someone else will, likely from some banana republic or despot country (including Russia) that don't give squat about the enviroment when it comes to producing hydrocarbons.
2. See 1. above
3. See 1. above AND do you want to preserve your standard of living via the creation of all that GDP that comes with the production of hydrocarbaons, and fuel those vehicles that take all those NGOs to protests?

It never fails to amaze me that people don't get what Canada does, or does not, do has no impact on the global scene at all.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

I don't see a way for Canada to prosper in a post hydrocarbon world. Oil is our big pitch. When it's gone, we're certainly not going to manufacture solar here. It will be imported from Asia and the US.

I worry that Oil will be Canada's last hurrah and it is coming to an end in the next few decades.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Why is oil going to end for Canada? Current production levels through existing pipeline structure can be sustained indefinitely. What I'd question is why we would want to build any additional oilsands production once the CNRL Horizon and Suncor Fort Hills project is completed. Sustaining at those levels should be gravy enough.

Added: Oil consumption is not likely to go down very quickly. I am guessing that demand will keep increasing for awhile yet by at least 1 million barrels per day... for maybe another 5-10 years and then begin to decline just as slowly as new technologies kick in. An equilibrium level might be reached circa 2050 at perhaps 50 million barrels per day (versus some 92 million barrels per day at the curreent time).


----------



## Nelley (Aug 14, 2016)

AltaRed said:


> Why is oil going to end for Canada? Current production levels through existing pipeline structure can be sustained indefinitely. What I'd question is why we would want to build any additional oilsands production once the CNRL Horizon and Suncor Fort Hills project is completed. Sustaining at those levels should be gravy enough.
> 
> Added: Oil consumption is not likely to go down very quickly. I am guessing that demand will keep increasing for awhile yet by at least 1 million barrels per day... for maybe another 5-10 years and then begin to decline just as slowly as new technologies kick in. An equilibrium level might be reached circa 2050 at perhaps 50 million barrels per day (versus some 92 million barrels per day at the curreent time).


The obvious problem is that costs of production/extraction are increasing way too fast-it wasn't that long ago that $43 oil was a great price for Canadian producers and profitability-if costs keep rising faster than the ability of the customer to pay you hit a wall.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Statistically, pipelines are safer than any other mode of transport.
> 
> Natural gas pipelines have risk of fire or explosion in case of a leak, but no environmental contamination. (Natural gas is lighter than air, it rises and dissipates in the atmosphere rather than contaminating soil or water - no cleanup. Sure, if it leaks continually it's adding hydrocarbons to the atmosphere, but no one expects a pipeline leak to go undetected and unrepaired indefinitely.)
> 
> Oil pipelines are another kettle of fish with respect to environmental risk.


Oil may not be that great, but the dilbit (diluted bitumen) that comes out of the tar sands is much worse. It sinks if spilled into water bodies and is highly flammable because of the diluent. It contains other nasties like sulphur and other toxic materials. It also requires a source of the diluent which is required to make it flow. Which usually means that another pipeline is required to supply that. 

By the way, I see there was a large pipeline spill in Alabama - a line that supplies gasoline to New York. They are scrambling to get gas to NY by alternative means. And hopefully to clean up the mess.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Nelley said:


> The obvious problem is that costs of production/extraction are increasing way too fast-it wasn't that long ago that $43 oil was a great price for Canadian producers and profitability-if costs keep rising faster than the ability of the customer to pay you hit a wall.


Ah, but much of that has been nipped in the bud. Operating and even development costs today after the oil price crash are way lower (almost half in some cases)from what they were when labour* and materials were priced through the roof. Nothing flushes out the excesses than a good old fashioned commodity price crash. It is actually good to have those crashes every 5-10 years just to ring the bell on those who might have forgotten. I went through at least 3 of these gong shows in my career in the industry.

Just have to look at some recent MD&A of some of your favourites to get that picture.

* Back in the peak, the anecdote was that vacuum truck drivers, basically unskilled 18 yr olds witha bit of training, could earn upwards of $100k per year doing those tough jobs with crazy hours. Lots of people from my area commuted to the oilfields for the big bucks, travel expenses paid. Not only has coverage of those travel expenses ceased, many of those giddy folks are no longer employed either.


----------



## TomB19 (Sep 24, 2015)

This is a great time to get a super deal on lifted pickup trucks with huge wheels.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

TomB19 said:


> This is a great time to get a super deal on lifted pickup trucks with huge wheels.


I actually don't know how those things get insured. They are disasters waiting to happen with their high center of gravity, lack of a usable crush zone to absorb energy with a body that is up in the stratosphere, and they tear out universal joints regularly with the sharp angles. The idiocy of those vehicles seems to be directly correlated to the IQ of their owners.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

^^^ hahaha Good one!

Don't forget the TruckNutz - direct negative correlation to IQ - the bigger the nutz, etc.




*~~~~~~~//~~~~~~~*

- for those offended; keep the whine in your bottle.
Use the wee "report post" button.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

.

lol not long ago sags was describing a huge armoured combat vehicle his factory was building for the DOD many moons ago. Sags said it was classified information but he thought he could let it out after so many moons.

then mode passed by & posted that, yea, those top-heavy trucks were famous for tipping over in the field. With soldiers inside. Under fire.

.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Answers to the 3 questions:
> 
> 1. If we don't, someone else will, likely from some banana republic or despot country (including Russia) that don't give squat about the environment when it comes to producing hydrocarbons.
> ... etc.


Similar arguments were used to continue exporting asbestos.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

So you equate asbestos to oil.
In what way(s) do you equate them?


----------



## steve41 (Apr 18, 2009)

My father was at sea for 40 plus years..... in the engine room. In those days, everything was coated in asbestos... this was in the age of steam and steam turbines. It was so thick (the asbestos) that you couldn't see across the engine room.

He died in his mid-90s from heart failure.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Similar arguments were used to continue exporting asbestos.


I shouldn't even respond to something like that. Hydrocarbons are an essential product and will be for hundreds of years, just not nearly as intensively as now. The Canadian economy will always be somewhat dependent on the GDP it brings.


----------



## agent99 (Sep 11, 2013)

steve41 said:


> My father was at sea for 40 plus years..... in the engine room. In those days, everything was coated in asbestos... this was in the age of steam and steam turbines. _ It was so thick (the asbestos) that you couldn't see across the engine room._
> 
> He died in his mid-90s from heart failure.


Asbestos was no doubt used in manufacturing the insulation used on hot piping as well as in gaskets and in the fireboxes. But so thick in the air ..... An exaggeration?? Asbestos is a very bad thing to breath in. I wouldn't downplay it's dangers.

BTW, my dad was also a marine engineer in the days of steam but swallowed the anchor after he got married and got a shore based job, still related to steam power. He died of cancer - cause not known.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> So you equate asbestos to oil.
> In what way(s) do you equate them?



i don't think Guru is comparing asbestos to oil

my takeaway is that he's pointing out that canada, too, has been guilty of exporting toxic products & following a beggar-thy-neighbour environmental policy when it comes to asbestos

i think such a reminder is a good thing. Canada should be reminded from time to time that not everything is sunny ways, the country does have warts to cure & we should be working on these.

.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Thank-you Humble Pie. You're right - I wasn't comparing asbestos to oil. Just pointing out the weakness of the argument that "If we don't do it, someone else will." But I guess that went over some people's heads.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I don't find the argument weak at all. Asbestos is a known carcinogen for which there are better substitutes. 

As much as some folk have a 'hate on' for oil, it is the only thing that makes the global economy produce as it does and there is no realistic alternative for most uses. We will still be using tens of millions of barrels per day for a century or two. Hence produce it in countries that have at least some social and environmental conscience. It is that simple.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I don't think it went over anyone's head. You equated the "someone else will fill the demand" argument in favour of Canadian asbestos with that in favour of Canadian oil. The first is a cancer-causing, demonstrably unnecessary material in today's world - while the latter is an irreplacable feedstock to a myriad of today's materials, that can be produced and used responsibly and safely. 

It is entirely appropriate to point out that in the absence of Canadian oil, it is likely to be oil from corrupt and/or irresponsible sources that replaces it. 

In the current environment where global solutions require countries to be stepping up and working together, I'm not sure how devolving the control of more of our oil supply to nefarious countries helps?

Added. I see AltaRed has already made the above points


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

Risks , extreme weather, labour and economic crash.... 
The water protection should come the first priority at this stage. 

- Alberta Pipeline Leak Spills 380,000 Litres Near Grizzly Habitat
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/06/14/alberta-pipeline-leak_n_10467076.html
CP *|* By The Canadian Press Posted: 06/14/2016 6:20 pm EDT 

- The husky spill
NORTH BATTLEFORD, SASK. The Globe and Mail Last updated: Saturday, Aug. 27, 2016 7:42PM 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...skatchewans-regulatorysystem/article31585612/


- Beijing’s trade agreement with Australia allows Chinese companies to use their own workers. Is Canada next?
http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/08/29/Trudeau-China-Trip/

That’s what happened when Australia signed a free trade agreement with China last year, warns Andrew Dettmer, national president of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union.
The China-Australia Free Trade Agreement gave Chinese enterprises the right to bring in an unlimited number of workers for major projects, the union says. 
“An agreement like ChAFTA is a road to ruin for Canadian jobs,” Dettmer told The Tyee. “It won’t provide anything by way of advantage to Canadian industry.” 


- Climate Change and Agriculture – Productivity Will Fall, Food Prices Will Rise
http://globe-net.com/climate-change-agriculture/

“Irrespective of our assumptions on global trade, climate change will result in reduced crop yields in many areas. At the same time, intensifying production or expanding cultivated land into previously untouched areas may come at a risk: it could lead to additional greenhouse-gas emissions through tropical deforestation or increased fertilizer use.”
This could then further enhance climate change pressure on agriculture.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Its pretty suspect when leaks are described in litres rather than barrels/// no glory in a 2000 barrel spill haha hardly got wet...maybe they should print cubic centimeter spills..
How bout 340000000 milliliters...I doubt anyone reading the Huff Post could make out the difference.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

s123 said:


> Risks , extreme weather, labour and economic crash....
> The water protection should come the first priority at this stage.
> 
> - Alberta Pipeline Leak Spills 380,000 Litres Near Grizzly Habitat
> ...


These incidents showed the pipeline risks are often to damaging the environment.

- Alberta oil spill covers size of 5 football fields in marshland near Fox Creek
http://globalnews.ca/news/2999321/a...-football-fields-in-marshland-near-fox-creek/
October 12, 2016

-Nexen Oil Spill Could Have Been Leaking For Over 2 Weeks:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/07/22/nexen-energy-oil-spill-in_n_7846254.html
CP By Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press 
Posted: 07/22/2015 4:00 am EDT 

- Alberta pipelines: 5 major oil spills in recent history:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/alberta-pipelines-5-major-oil-spills-in-recent-history-1.3156604
Leaks adding to pipeline-vs.-rail safety debate
CBC News Posted: Jul 17, 2015 2:07 PM ET

Crude Awakening: 37 years of oil spills in Alberta:
http://globalnews.ca/news/571494/introduction-37-years-of-oil-spills-in-alberta/
May 22, 2013
Alberta’s had an average of two crude oil spills a day, every day for the past 37 years.

...The database provides a granular portrait of mishaps involving the oil in oil country.
But maybe more telling is what it doesn’t include: The regulatory body’s database is messy and missing data in many places; it doesn’t include any spills from some of the biggest pipelines – those crossing provincial or national borders. These fall under National Energy Board jurisdiction. For the 53 per cent of spills from somewhere other than a pipeline, such as oil wells and pumping stations, anything under 2 cubic metres (2,000 litres, or about twelve and a half barrels) doesn’t get counted.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

- Canada gives $3.3bn subsidies to fossil fuel producers despite climate pledge: 
Fastest way to transition Canada to a green economy? Quit the giveaways.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...e-canada-fossil-fuel-subsidies-carbon-trudeau

...But a study by four major Canadian environmental groups has shown that carbon pricing risks being undermined by billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel interests,
from both federal and provincial governments.

The $3.3bn annual subsidy, made up of extraction incentives and research and development, amounts to paying polluters $19 for each tonne of carbon dioxide they emit, according to the green groups. This would conflict, they say, with the planned carbon price, which will ramp up to $50 a tonne by 2022.

“This system is like taxing consumers when they buy cigarettes while giving massive tax breaks to tobacco companies that encourage them to produce more cigarettes. It doesn’t make sense,” 
said Alex Doukas of Oil Change International.

Dale Marshall of Environmental Defense added: “Unless Canada phases out massive subsidies to oil and gas companies, Trudeau’s carbon price will do little to encourage polluters to cut carbon emissions. The $3bn in annual subsidies could be put to much better use by investing in climate action, healthcare or other initiatives.”


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

Wow! 46bn to $3.3bn. So we are cutting down the cost.. :hororr:

-Canada Gives ~$46 Billion Per Year In Fossil Fuel Subsidies:
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/08/canada-gives-46-billion-per-year-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

s123 said:


> Wow! 46bn to $3.3bn. So we are cutting down the cost.. :hororr:
> 
> -Canada Gives ~$46 Billion Per Year In Fossil Fuel Subsidies:
> https://cleantechnica.com/2016/02/08/canada-gives-46-billion-per-year-in-fossil-fuel-subsidies/


But, it's not $46.4 billion. It's only $1.4 billion. The article says:

"$46.4 billion a year, according to a report from the IMF last year — with $1.4 billion of this referring to pre-tax subsidies, and a further $44.6 billion referring to externalized costs to society that aren’t accounted for."

I'd like to see what the "externalized costs" are and how they were calculated. Too often these are fantasy numbers simply made up by people with an agenda.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

It is all propaganda (mistruths and misinformation) by the IISD which has taken liberty with their $3.3 Billion quote.... with a ton of so-called tax breaks that are really legitimate writeoffs that ALL businesses and corporations take, e.g. operating expenses (which includes unsuccessful exploration expense which is no different than an unsuccessful business venture), DD&A (amortization) on development capex, etc. The ONLY costs that could possibly be listed as a subsidy are 'reduced royalties' on O&G projects until development capital pays out and the project turns a profit. And that is ultimately a small fraction compared to the billions in taxes and royalty revenues that accrue to development that might not otherwise occur. IOW, governments concede $1 in royalties now for $100 of tax and royalty revenue over the next 30 years. C'est la vie in the era of social media and lack of accountability by vested interests. People really need to read for themselves rather than running with the first thing that raises their pulse a bit.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

We need pipelines.

Ours is a resource based economy. If you doubt this then take a look at where our dollar is and what the projected direction is over the next six months. Or....sit beside the mainline of CP or CN and watch the traffic or go down to a seaport terminal. We need to get our products to market. We need some control over the means to do this. We should not rely on others.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

bass player said:


> But, it's not $46.4 billion. It's only $1.4 billion. The article says:
> 
> "$46.4 billion a year, according to a report from the IMF last year — with $1.4 billion of this referring to pre-tax subsidies, and a further $44.6 billion referring to externalized costs to society that aren’t accounted for."
> 
> I'd like to see what the "externalized costs" are and how they were calculated. Too often these are fantasy numbers simply made up by people with an agenda.


oops! That's right.
my comment on this article was a reckless.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

Scratch out the current deals.
Make a better planing with true environment assessment. 
Our oil dependency is high so environmental group, gov, corporation, companies, scientist etc. work together to finding the best approach for the country/nature.

The water protection comes a top priority.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe / all other tribe / all human & all living things have the rights to live & protect their land & water.

“Article 32
http://themindunleashed.com/2016/11/thanksgiving-tribute-meditation-standing-rock.html

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.

2. States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

3. States shall provide effective mechanisms for just and fair redress for any such activities, and appropriate measures shall be taken to mitigate adverse environmental, economic, social, cultural or spiritual impact.”


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

s123 said:


> Scratch out the current deals.




kinder morgan's transMountain pipeline from alberta to a port terminal in burnaby BC is close to a done deal. This is not even a new pipeline, it's been operating for 50 years.

it's true that the reconfigured transMountain will have substantial enlargements, route changes & deviations from old transMountain. But the successful history of the project to date cannot be dismissed.

the national energy board asked kinder morgan to re-engineer/improve/reroute/address more than 500 small issues along the route from AB to BC. I would imagine that KMI had anticipated most of those issues & the company will comply. In fact is complying as i post this message.

the startup of new transMountain should ease the firebox pressure on canada generally, to find export points for landlocked alberta oil. Next up will likely be approval of keystone.


S123 might i add that i am as interested in first nation land rights & spirit beliefs as any canadian could ever possibly be. Thank you for bringing these up. Both canada & the US benefit enormously from first nations. There is an accumuated wisdom among their elders - drawn from millennia of existence here on Turtle Island - that non-natives are just beginning to understand & appreciate.

that being said, though, i believe all would agree that no single people has the right to "own" Turtle Island. We are all here as stewards & we must learn to share. In the case of the transMountain pipeline, surely sharing means respecting the land usage rights which kinder morgan has earned over the past half-century.

.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

s123 said:


> “Article 32
> http://themindunleashed.com/2016/11/thanksgiving-tribute-meditation-standing-rock.html
> 
> 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to determine and develop priorities and strategies for the development or use of their lands or territories and other resources.
> ...


Article 32 is a UN declaration, not US law. This declaration comes from the same UN that puts countries such as Cuba, China, Qatar and Saudi Arabia on their human rights council. 

That being said, consultation was attempted and rebuffed by the indigenous people repeatedly:

"Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met many times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.

Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders, only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.

In September 2014 alone, the Corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, but "when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended," according to a federal judge."

http://www.wdaz.com/news/4159502-column-what-dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-arent-telling-you


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

I, too, empathize with the need to address indigenous issues BUT I draw the line at manipulation and pure lies. Refusing to meet and then cry wolf about lack of consultation happens on a regular basis on almost any significant development issue. What doesn't come across in the Standing Rock issue is that the Dakota pipeline ROW aligns with Northern Border P/L ROW which has been in place since 1982. Albeit NB is a gas pipeline. What is really going on here is something more sinister.

Added: I look forward to DJT taking care of the problem come late January.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

And, let's not forget the actions of much of the media who have deliberately ignored much of the facts in this case in order to support the agenda they believe in. Just like in the US election, one side was taken and steps were taken to control the message.

The problem for the mainstream media is that too many people have seen through their lies and no longer trust them. They have now been reduced to accusing everyone else of "fake news" in an attempt to salvage what little credibility they have left. I'm glad to that see people are finally catching on to what many of us have known for years.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

After reading about the new discovery of a mammoth shale oil formation in west Texas, I wonder if Canada is too late for pipelines to make a difference for the oilsands. Some companies are asking the Alberta government to extend leases until the situation changes. There is talk of "orphaned" oilsands resources.

The US will be an oil exporter by next year. They have access to world markets from the Gulf of Mexico. 

Over production is already an issue and is probably going to become a bigger problem.

If Canada doesn't get started soon on an east or west pipeline, it may be too late to matter.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

^^

Agree. Trump will not put roadblocks in place to stop production like Obama may have.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

The USA will NOT be a net exporter for a number of years yet, but it is possible in perhaps 5 years if shale oil production is ramped up sharply. But they will have to recover from today's 8.6 million barrels per day to 2014's peak of 9.5 million barrels per day AND then grow it to circa 17 million barrels per day to be in balance with consumption.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2016-01-26/the-myth-of-us-self-sufficiency-in-crude-oil 

There is no longer any point to Keystone XL. We don't need to send yet more oil* to the USA. Kinder Morgan will get approved in December and perhaps Canada East 'might' eventually get built.

* Remember a lot of US refineries spent billions to be able to process Canadian diluted bitumen. They won't be turning away from that and leave stranded assets. I just no longer see any additional growth.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

bass player said:


> And, let's not forget the actions of much of the media who have deliberately ignored much of the facts in this case in order to support the agenda they believe in. Just like in the US election, one side was taken and steps were taken to control the message.
> 
> The problem for the mainstream media is that too many people have seen through their lies and no longer trust them. They have now been reduced to accusing everyone else of "fake news" in an attempt to salvage what little credibility they have left. I'm glad to that see people are finally catching on to what many of us have known for years.


This is my view.
If top (decision maker) is a good, the system becomes a good.
police, military, gov., authorities, media, etc are reflection of the top decision.
The person in belonging in there has to listen the order/pressure and act whether they have agreed/like of it or not.
That's creating a lot of stress and cost of their life.

I mean same person becomes a good and bad by the system / environment.
or...same person standing left side and good for the left but this good is not good in a right side.

Another example,
Apple is a good healthy food that it's growing a healthy / clean environment.
But apple become unhealthy food that it's growing contaminated land or water.

Well,
I just pick and choose the information on whatever the sources.
Just don't believe it whole of them.
The information is for me to reach my conclusion or bring some idea.
Sometimes the information come from years ago + recent information or even just a little sentences + experience etc. are merging together and then get some piffany.

Good journalism should be more recognizing than bad one. 
Good journalism is not one sided stories and tell us just what it is.
I'm appreciating their challenge wherever standing.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

I don't want to bring you guys down and any but I would like to see the reduction plan for the oil & gas.
I'm not supporting any mass productions that makes great impact on the environment.
If the oil is just using for Canada / capped to export with non environment impacts it will be a great reduction.

I would like to see more increase the renewal energy in our future.
(with fair sharing the wealth to all )

-Ontario’s big wind bonanza: Over 90% of subsidies funneled to just 11 companies:
http://business.financialpost.com/f...90-of-subsidies-funneled-to-just-11-companies


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

A reduction in oil production by Canada is not a factor in global oil production. IOW, current production of about 4 million barrels per day is a mere 4.2% of global oil production of 95 million barrels per day. About the same percentage our stock market is in the global market. Mere noise.....really.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> There is no longer any point to Keystone XL. We don't need to send yet more oil* to the USA. Kinder Morgan will get approved in December and perhaps Canada East 'might' eventually get built.
> 
> * Remember a lot of US refineries spent billions to be able to process Canadian diluted bitumen. They won't be turning away from that and leave stranded assets. I just no longer see any additional growth.




this is interesting but i'm not sure i quite understand the update.

altaRed are you saying that existing keystone plus KMI transMountain will be able to handle all the alberta bitumen that alberta needs to export? no need for Energy East? no need for keystone XL? wouldn't this be putting too big an expectation on transMountain?

if true - existing keystone plus kinder morgan can handle - then we need to reflect on what this will mean to railways & oil tanker railcars. Rail traffic will shrink & tanker cars will no longer be needed.

then there is the question of what would happen to plans for northern gateway, if expanded kinder morgan will be sufficient. Last we heard there were at least 3 companies all planning to move alberta oil to ports in either prince rupert or kitimat. Plus an intended gas export terminal at prince rupert.

.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Justin Trudeau is expected to announce numerous pipeline decisions today after markets close (est. 4:30 PM ET). Albertans are eager for some good news - for a change. I hope the Prime Minister delivers it.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Trudeau announced the approval of Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines. Northern Gateway has been rejected. 

During his news conference, the Prime Minister gave a nod to (Alberta Premier) Rachel Notley for her commitment to the environment. He said that her commitment was a prerequisite to the Kinder Morgan approval. Her environmental stance and carbon taxes have made her unpopular with Albertans. This may give her a much needed boost. 

The PM also reiterated that pipelines are safer than rail. He's right. 

Good news for my province.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Great news for all Canadians.

One thing I wonder is if oil tanker traffic will increase in the Great Lakes as a result of the Line 3 replacement.

The line starts in Hardisty, Alberta and ends at Superior, Wisconsin which is located on Lake Superior.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Line 3 product ends up in other pipelines such as the Great Lakes Transmission system, not in tankers.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

olivaw said:


> Trudeau announced the approval of Trans Mountain and Line 3 pipelines. Northern Gateway has been rejected.
> 
> The PM also reiterated that pipelines are safer than rail. He's right.
> 
> Good news for my province.




yay !


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

BC pipeline projects looks tough and create many conflicts.
BC's best abilities are supplying the foods to western Canada.
Majority of BC want to move on to clean environment.
So why gov./top gives green light on pipeline projects that province shows clearly not supporting?
I guess that investor's interest is just profits. Their best interest is not for Canada's true wealth.
I don't want to see north Alberta expanding more contaminated land.
On going damages are severe there already.
After used it up just leave us massive polluted land with unlivable place.
What's a good with that.

I see the same pattern in this system all over the world, first push down the people to stress out, dangling the carrots to fight against each other, just nothing gets done because using the time for to fighting, jobless increase, the country/industries deteriorate, all negative follow.

Quality food makes better health to Canadian. 
More healthy people will improve the health care systems also.
Remember, food shortage is increasing from the natural disaster in recent years. 
Drought, flood and fire will be a major concern.

It's better to protect the foods/water source because everybody needs to eat/drink. 
As we've seen the situation of the world that moving toward on unpredictable future, 
so to prepare the worst is the wise decision now.

I was only support to utilize Canadian oil to Canada and regulating the prices without expansion of the oil sands. 

All countries will face the challenges to fixing /replacing the systems that's becoming a dysfunction on near future.
This term isn't profitable because many of them are failing.
(need re-learn great depression)
We can't do same approaching like before that won't work in this circumstance.

Any countries focus and work on toward stabilizing for their countries will prevent the worst case scenario. (Aim steady, minimize the damage to preventing to losing more etc.)

Losing their trust lead to lose their abilities.
If anybody/company/gov./country/investor acts recklessly against the nature + not protecting the land / basic needs will get hit hard. 

Some of those may have the escape plan that won't work by nature's rule.


----------



## s123 (May 3, 2015)

Once looking at the system, recognizing gov. need to listen for Canadian & investors.
There are conflicts of interested between protection vs profits (without concerning other negative facts).

The roots of current system is mainly supporting the economic wealth.
When we keep following this system that's supporting ourselves to unlivable places with environmental impacts.

We can't ignore the ecosystem in our body or life depend on environment.
The problems will show/catch up us on over the course or by the accidents occur.
The ecosystem is our base but somehow set it to the side now that's why this world is becoming mess & living with dysfunction.
Anything live on earth except human follow the basic rule. They don't have to go to school to knowing this. 

We need to restore ecosystem base of education, science, economy and also our inner sense. 
If everybody works toward this restoration we may observe the world of harmony.

The system is creating the opposition. 
You may disagree with opposition but don't hate fellow citizens because they are just following the system.
Step back and observe the system in front of you.
Some of them are paid to spread the hate for to divide / weakening the group, country etc..
The life is a short. (life expectancy Canada is around 80 )
Give your best to the next generation.

Here is the example that communities followed the economic benefits and took the risk of health & environment. 
I see this tactic everywhere from the small scale to the large one.
Most of the results are unhappy ending and communities/countries have suffered.
There is no way to get back the place where it was.
Although the facing the necessities make all citizen work toward to their protection.


Where oil and water mix:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ays-indigenous-communitytorn/article27151333/

Fort McKay’s elected chief, Jim Boucher, welcomes the opportunities offered by the oil sands, and is touted by company executives as a pragmatic leader who would prefer to negotiate a benefit agreement than battle a development. 
Mr. Boucher acknowledges the environmental challenges but insists that, on balance, the oil sands have been good for Fort McKay, which average incomes last year exceeded those in the province as a whole. 

...Ms. Fitzpatrick describes a growing divide between “haves” and “have-nots” (the latter including many who are critical of the band council).

And the opposite is equally true: A study that rules out a link between the oil sands and health effects will reduce the leverage local communities have when pressing industry for assistance. 

...The bands at Fort Chip have already conducted a study of their health. Released a year ago, it showed elevated levels of industrial contamination in the organs of moose, duck, muskrat and beaver, all staples of the traditional diet. Such pollutants are emitted by the oil sands, but, again, other sources are possible. 

The peer-reviewed study was led by Stéphane McLachlan, a professor in the University of Manitoba’s Department of Environment and Geography who found an increased incidence of rare cancers in people who have worked in the oil sands or rely on fish and game for their diet.


----------



## zylon (Oct 27, 2010)

*Alberta*

Good discussion between Danielle Smith and Duane Bratt,
about all things Alberta; NDP, carbon tax, pipelines, etc.

Select *Dec 28 : 10 a.m.* (start at 10:06 runs to 10:23)
http://www.newstalk770.com/audio-on-demand-2/

*Duane Bratt,* Mount Royal University Political Science Prof, @DuaneBratt (twitter)


----------

