West-East Pipeline

[Icebound]

Well, well, well... what goes around comes around...

From the Calgary Herald:

TransCanada CEO calls proposed east-west pipeline a 'historic day' for Canada

I guess Pierre was just ahead of his time:

...as from http://sgnews.ca/2012/11/08/new-pipeline-directions/

"

Politicians have also made a huge turnaround on this issue. In the 1980s, Alberta premier Peter Lougheed vigorously opposed shipping raw crude to refineries in Sarnia, as prime minister Pierre Trudeau envisioned, because it meant Alberta would also being shipping jobs out of the province.

"

[Demosthenes26]

Don't get too hopeful. Think about how much opposition the keystone and north gateway pipeline generated. Then remember that our "beloved" premier Dalton closed to two gas plants purely to appease nimbys. As much sense as this project makes. People will oppose it simply because its oil.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Demosthenes26

[jacee]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/69074000/jpg/_69074447_69074442.jpg

The pipeline, with a route displayed at a news conference on Thursday, must still be approved.

----

Oil firm TransCanada has unveiled plans to build a pipeline from western Canada to the country's Atlantic coast, as its plans for a US pipeline remain stalled.

It's a PROPOSAL.

But they're already doing the reversal in some sections:

Enbridge pipeline reversal approved

Last year, the National Energy Board granted approval for Enbridge Pipelines Inc. to change the flow direction of the Line 9A pipeline, which runs oil from Sarnia to Hamilton. This would change the flow from westbound to eastbound. It is now seeking approval to change the flow of Line 9B, which cuts through Hamilton.A hearing on the issue is scheduled for the week of Aug. 26.

The pipe is 38 years old, the walls only 1/3 of standards for corrosive tar sands crude, runs through a major wetland, headwaters threatening communities and eco-preserves ... but not to worry ...

White said ... Anything that causes us concern, or may cause concern far down the road, we will go to this location, we'll dig down to the line, we expose the line and do a number of other tests, just to ensure that there is no cause for concern,

"Concern" ... like a spill that has already happened.

So reassuring!

Enbrridge has such a shoddy record:

Enbridge spills-a-lot

and underestimates spills

The study also found the number of spills along the 1,160 kilometres of pipeline would be dramatically higher, up to 15 pipeline spills per year, compared with Enbridge's estimate of one spill every two years.That data was based on Enbridge's own pipeline spill record from 2002 to 2010, said Gunton.

"What we found was there were 28 deficiencies in (Enbridge's) risk assessment model.

...

"They made no attempt to correct that under-reporting."

Edited August 2, 2013 by jacee

[hitops]

What something with the word 'oil in it? Oppose it!

[AlienB]

I've already written Joe Oliver on this. This conversion project should only occur if security updates are done and all waterways have tripple layers of protection from leaks and there are regular audits of water quality and the pipeline.

Transcanada has suffered extensive vandalism and even has had explosion on its gas pipe. I dread to think what could happen with an oil pipeline in its place.

I can only hope that the project isn't done just lay industry standard pipe and move on. The pipe is bloody old and built by the mafia in large swaths of the stretch from manitoba to new brunswick.

They cannot go into this without having serious serious serious developments for security, monitoring and daily audits of the line.

It is a bomb waiting to go off, and the quantity of oil being shipped is relevant.

I'm not opposed to development but I am opposed to development that is dangerous, and fails to adequettely protect the public in the communities that line the many waterways the line traverses.

I don't know enough about this project yet... to be specfically critical but I have very little confidence in TransCanada to insure health and safety for the communities along the line, and by that I mean contaminating the local water ways that people fish pm and drink from. and that effect the environment, migratory species and so many other factors.

At the same time I have little confidence in the government to insure those things also... as it has taken no proactive measures to resolve the rail security faults.

It is so unfortunate for the future victims of this project when they materialize.

Edited August 2, 2013 by AlienB

[August1991]

Anyone who has followed the Brent/West Texas arbitrage profit opportunity understands what is happening.

I have a short term point, and a broader point. And then a serious twist.

Short Term 1) Having a valuable resource in northern Alberta (or Nigeria) is one thing. Getting the resource to consumers is something else -and may indeed be the "valuable resource". The Moon may have solid gold beneath its surface but unless you can bring it to Earth, you have nothing.

Shale oil in northern Alberta like waterfalls in Labrador are like gold on the Moon. They have no value. The truly valuable "natural resource" (the economic/Ricardian rent) is the access to consumers.

Long Term 2) The price of crude oil is about to collapse. The price of natural gas has already fallen. All of this was predictable but with the Chinese having access to shale oil, and extraction technologies, it's not hard to predict the future.

----

Twist? I'm a right-wing, small-government, free market, sort-of libertarian. Increasingly, I'm more conservative because I prefer small change to radical change.

But I'm also an environmentalist. IMV, we can't keep "sh*tting" in our own home. Or more precisely, no society is sustainable if people can freely sh*t in their neighbour's home.

Edited August 2, 2013 by August1991

[Topaz]

First of all, no oil company can guanantee no spin will happen because they will down the road, secondly, isn't the land in Northern Ontario own by the First Nation and there still the talks with Quebec, who could rake in billions from the oil companies for allowing the pipeline in. I also, think the oil company should put up a bond or have a fund for damage control when the oil pipeline does break. The CEO also said that gasoline prices should come down because of the pipeline and being refined in Canada. MY question is, IF that true why isn't US gas prices lower??

[Argus]

I think a lot of Canadians are starting to think shipping oil by pipeline is a hell of a lot safer than shipping it by rail. It's easier to clean up a spill than to clean up bodies. BTW, bitumen doesn't burn. Quebec is the only province which might throw a wrench into things, but the recent train derailment there which burned half a town is going to defuse much of that. People know we need oil and given there's only two ways to get it, pipeline or train, most will choose the pipeline.

[hitops]

I think a lot of Canadians are starting to think shipping oil by pipeline is a hell of a lot safer than shipping it by rail. It's easier to clean up a spill than to clean up bodies. BTW, bitumen doesn't burn. Quebec is the only province which might throw a wrench into things, but the recent train derailment there which burned half a town is going to defuse much of that. People know we need oil and given there's only two ways to get it, pipeline or train, most will choose the pipeline.

Or truck, which is even more costly and even more risky. Pipeline is by far the safest way for oil to move, we have known this for a very long time and the numbers demonstrate it. No method is perfectly safe. If you want electricity and to be able to travel anywhere or really do anything resembling living in a modern civilization, that's life.

[Icebound]

----

Twist? I'm a right-wing, small-government, free market, sort-of libertarian. Increasingly, I'm more conservative because I prefer small change to radical change.

But I'm also an environmentalist. IMV, we can't keep "sh*tting" in our own home. Or more precisely, no society is sustainable if people can freely sh*t in their neighbour's home.

Interesting. Because small-government, free market sort of conservatism is exactly what permits "sh*tting" in our neighbour's home without any immediate consequence.... but I digress:

By virtue of the fact that we live, we have to sh*t somewhere. The trick is to reduce the sh*t to a bare minimum. And whatever is absolutely necessary, we clean up and reprocess it into something inert or something useful.

The problem has been that we have been fed (and eagerly accept) the promise of "cheap". We buy cheap inferior products from offshore manufacturers, and we thrive on cheap oil. If anybody was to suggest that we REALLY build a "safe" pipeline that protects humanity, wildlife, environment...in other words, if we reduced the sh*t to a minimum...... if we actually funded an insurance plan fully which would allow complete clean up of any sh*t that did occur.... if we properly reclaimed the environment that the sh*t damaged..... if we did all that....well, then it would no longer be "cheap"...

Hear the cries now when Oil at the refinery (after paying for all "safe and clean extraction, safe and clean transportation")...turns out to be $300 a barrel and not $100. Or when the Government needs 25 or 50c extra per litre to pay for the necessary research, regulation, inspection, infrastructure, etc...

Ah, yes, hear the cries......

We (Canadians) don't do it because they (the rest of the human race) won't do it. So we accept a certain amount of sh*t as the cost of life. How much is too much? THAT is the argument. A meaningless argument, because there is no correct answer.

So we reduce it to bare essentials. Do the people who want it built have more money and power than the people who do not want it built? Or vice versa. Damn the national requirements, damn the economic purpose, damn the environment,.... FACTS are irrelevant.... Money and power will get it built, or money and power will stop it.

....

[dre]

Don't get too hopeful. Think about how much opposition the keystone and north gateway pipeline generated. Then remember that our "beloved" premier Dalton closed to two gas plants purely to appease nimbys. As much sense as this project makes. People will oppose it simply because its oil.

The difference is northern gateway was a stupid idea. This ones pretty smart. Canada imports most of its oil from Venezuela... It makes sense to pipe our oil to where the demand and refining capacity are, import nothing, and export much less.

[Smallc]

I don't know if Northern Gateway is stupid. There is enough capacity coming online to fill every proposed pipeline...and more.

[Topaz]

Let's face it many investors stand to make a killing if this pipeline goes through and I wonder how many MP's stand to make a fortunate? Wouldn't that be an indirect conflict of interest?

[Sandy MacNab]

Let's face it many investors stand to make a killing if this pipeline goes through and I wonder how many MP's stand to make a fortunate? Wouldn't that be an indirect conflict of interest?

If you are so sure of that why don't you put a few dollars into some shares and make a "killing" too?

[dre]

I don't know if Northern Gateway is stupid. There is enough capacity coming online to fill every proposed pipeline...and more.

Its stupid to export Canadian oil via tanker on the west coast while importing the bulk of our supply from Venezuela via tankers on the east coast. And the only reason we export a lot of oil is because we import a lot of oil. If we supplied our own demand then all that would be left to export is a trickle, and that could go to the easter seaboard in the US or get shipped out of the east coast.

[dre]

Let's face it many investors stand to make a killing if this pipeline goes through and I wonder how many MP's stand to make a fortunate? Wouldn't that be an indirect conflict of interest?

Yes, you should have to sell shares in companies your decisions effect to run for public office. Good luck getting that done in a corprocracy though.

[hitops]

Its stupid to export Canadian oil via tanker on the west coast while importing the bulk of our supply from Venezuela via tankers on the east coast. And the only reason we export a lot of oil is because we import a lot of oil. If we supplied our own demand then all that would be left to export is a trickle, and that could go to the easter seaboard in the US or get shipped out of the east coast.

True it's ridiculous that we send western oil to port and import ship-borne oil in the east. But false that it would somehow work out to an even equation. The total exports are and would be far in excess of the imports.

[dre]

True it's ridiculous that we send western oil to port and import ship-borne oil in the east. But false that it would somehow work out to an even equation. The total exports are and would be far in excess of the imports.

Depends how you look at it. We export about 48 billion dollars worth of oil per year but we import about 30 billion dollars. If we supplied our own demand we would only be exporting about 20 billion dollars per year which is about 1% of our GDP.

[Smallc]

You're missing what I said. Over the next couple of decades, production could increase in the range of 4 - 6M/BBL per day. That's a lot more oil than we need.

[PIK]

I've already written Joe Oliver on this. This conversion project should only occur if security updates are done and all waterways have tripple layers of protection from leaks and there are regular audits of water quality and the pipeline.

Transcanada has suffered extensive vandalism and even has had explosion on its gas pipe. I dread to think what could happen with an oil pipeline in its place.

I can only hope that the project isn't done just lay industry standard pipe and move on. The pipe is bloody old and built by the mafia in large swaths of the stretch from manitoba to new brunswick.

They cannot go into this without having serious serious serious developments for security, monitoring and daily audits of the line.

It is a bomb waiting to go off, and the quantity of oil being shipped is relevant.

I'm not opposed to development but I am opposed to development that is dangerous, and fails to adequettely protect the public in the communities that line the many waterways the line traverses.

I don't know enough about this project yet... to be specfically critical but I have very little confidence in TransCanada to insure health and safety for the communities along the line, and by that I mean contaminating the local water ways that people fish pm and drink from. and that effect the environment, migratory species and so many other factors.

At the same time I have little confidence in the government to insure those things also... as it has taken no proactive measures to resolve the rail security faults.

It is so unfortunate for the future victims of this project when they materialize.

Also if caught screwing with pipelines, major jail time.

[hitops]

Depends how you look at it. We export about 48 billion dollars worth of oil per year but we import about 30 billion dollars. If we supplied our own demand we would only be exporting about 20 billion dollars per year which is about 1% of our GDP.

That's not a different way looking at it, that's the same thing as I said. Exports far outpace imports, and will continue to do so regardless of new pipelines. Of course, with the new pipeline to the south we could increase that margin even further.

But the new question is whether the US even cares anymore. They are supposed to be energy independent by around 2018-2019, at which point there may be little reason to approve more lines from so called 'tar sand' oil, and only political costs.

Edited August 3, 2013 by hitops

[Argus]

But the new question is whether the US even cares anymore. They are supposed to be energy independent by around 2018-2019, at which point there may be little reason to approve more lines from so called 'tar sand' oil, and only political costs.

Personally, I suspect that fracking is going to wind up doing a lot more damage to the environment than the oil sands.

Edited August 4, 2013 by Argus

[hitops]

Personally, I suspect that fracking is going to wind up doing a lot more damage to the environment than the oil sands.

It's possible, but if you're a politician I don't think it's possible to resist the temptation to grandstand against another country's carbon emission rather than dealing with your own, even if your own is worse. Perfect example - routinely pointed out this side of the border, is that coal makes up a way larger share of US power production than up here, and it's a very dirty form.

[dre]

But the new question is whether the US even cares anymore. They are supposed to be energy independent by around 2018-2019, at which point there may be little reason to approve more lines from so called 'tar sand' oil, and only political costs.

Yes thats very true. This whole argument is taking place agains the backdrop of rapidly decreasing US imports and rapidly increasing domestic production. This has not only put downward pressure on oil prices, but it is starting to bust oil tanker companies.

This is another reason why we should be focusing on filling domestic demand.

[Smallc]

But the new question is whether the US even cares anymore. They are supposed to be energy independent by around 2018-2019, at which point there may be little reason to approve more lines from so called 'tar sand' oil, and only political costs.

I'm pretty sure that's only in a North American context. In other words, that includes Canadian energy.