AGREED! tincan.
Using THAT logic - we should all dump our used engine oil down the drain because that means: "jobs, jobs, jobs...!!!"
Federal Government Approves Kinder Morgan and Line 3
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
Using THAT logic - we should all dump our used engine oil down the drain because that means: "jobs, jobs, jobs...!!!"
sly_karma
Crew Member
Large oil companies are themselves investing in renewable energy. They know there's such a thing as peak oil demand, and that time is coming fast, well within the purview of medium range corporate planning. Once electric cars become consistently same price or cheaper than gas engines - about 10-15 years - oil tops out and begins a steady decline from which there is no bounce back. Yes, trucks, trains and ships will still burn diesel for another generation, and yes, we'll still make fabrics and plastics from oil products, but the heyday for oil will be over. The current push for pipelines is a move to make the big cash now, before oil drops off the rock star list and becomes just another useful but bland commodity like coal, wool, wheat, steel.
If we permit those pipelines to be built, we help to lock western Canada into a position that will become increasingly untenable, stoutly defending its oil economy and eventually demanding federal government support to prop up an "essential" industry. We'll look like a repeat of Nova Scotia in the 70s/80s, trying (and failing) to prop up its coal industry, or Newfoundland in the 90s watching its cod fishery collapse and demanding someone help them out.
The scenario has already played out once before: the big recession of the early 80s sent oil prices tumbling and Alberta took a massive hit. The same slump slammed BC really hard, too, with fishing and lumber industries both in near collapse. Provincial governments took very different paths to recovery. The Alberta govt howled long and loud about the National Energy Policy (with some justification) and won major federal subsidies for oil exploration after Trudeau's exit in 1985. BC took a different approach and worked hard to reduce our historic dependence on fishing and logging. Governments of all parties helped to develop BC into a modern diversified economy by investing in tourism, film/TV/game production, agri-business, IT, construction and so on.
On the face of it, Alberta has learnt nothing. Virtually all of their eggs are still in the oil/gas basket and they're still demanding the rest of the country help out by allowing pipelines through their lands and dilbit tankers in their waters. Sooner or later they have to face reality and diversify into other industries, or they'll be no different to Atlantic Canada with multiple decades of poverty and recovery. In 2030, those pipelines will be running at below capacity, some of them probably mothballed. The rig hands and drillers will be paid not much differently than farm workers because that's all the resource pricing can support. Will this rash of expansion today be worth it, even without a major environmental incident in the interim?
If we permit those pipelines to be built, we help to lock western Canada into a position that will become increasingly untenable, stoutly defending its oil economy and eventually demanding federal government support to prop up an "essential" industry. We'll look like a repeat of Nova Scotia in the 70s/80s, trying (and failing) to prop up its coal industry, or Newfoundland in the 90s watching its cod fishery collapse and demanding someone help them out.
The scenario has already played out once before: the big recession of the early 80s sent oil prices tumbling and Alberta took a massive hit. The same slump slammed BC really hard, too, with fishing and lumber industries both in near collapse. Provincial governments took very different paths to recovery. The Alberta govt howled long and loud about the National Energy Policy (with some justification) and won major federal subsidies for oil exploration after Trudeau's exit in 1985. BC took a different approach and worked hard to reduce our historic dependence on fishing and logging. Governments of all parties helped to develop BC into a modern diversified economy by investing in tourism, film/TV/game production, agri-business, IT, construction and so on.
On the face of it, Alberta has learnt nothing. Virtually all of their eggs are still in the oil/gas basket and they're still demanding the rest of the country help out by allowing pipelines through their lands and dilbit tankers in their waters. Sooner or later they have to face reality and diversify into other industries, or they'll be no different to Atlantic Canada with multiple decades of poverty and recovery. In 2030, those pipelines will be running at below capacity, some of them probably mothballed. The rig hands and drillers will be paid not much differently than farm workers because that's all the resource pricing can support. Will this rash of expansion today be worth it, even without a major environmental incident in the interim?
Clint r
Well-Known Member
The Canadian Press - Jan 29 7:48 am
Human error - whether it's burying a pipeline too shallow or not fastening bolts tight enough- is increasingly a factor contributing to pipeline leaks, federal data suggests.
Figures compiled by the National Energy Board show that in the past three years, incorrect operation - which covers everything from failing to follow procedures to using equipment improperly - has caused an average of 20 leaks per year. That's up from an average of four annually in the previous six years.
"It's both probably one of the most difficult things for an organization to deal with, but also the most important," said Mark Fleming, a professor of safety culture at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.
Fleming said operators have made improvements in safety practices, but to achieve the higher levels of safety required by other industries such as the airline or nuclear power sectors would require extreme attention to detail.
What may seem inconsequential at first can later contribute to a disaster, Fleming said.
"It's like a ball balancing on the top of a pyramid," he said.
"Safety, particularly very high levels of safety, requires constant attention and effort. And the tendency is for it to degrade."
Pipelines installed in the U.S. in the past five years have the highest rate of failure of any built since the 1920s, and human error is partially to blame, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Washington-based Pipeline Safety Trust.
"A lot of new pipelines being put in the ground just aren't being installed right, or things don't get tightened up quite enough, so within the first year or two things fail," said Weimer.
The consequences of the improper management of pipelines have come to bear in several spills in recent years, resulting in oil coursing down rivers, gushing onto city streets and contaminating many hectares of Canadian wilderness.
Alberta Energy Regulator investigations into Plains Midstream Canada, for one, found that the company hadn't inspected its pipelines frequently or thoroughly enough, did a poor job of managing the ground around its pipelines and hadn't properly trained control room staff.
A subsequent audit found the company had improved its safety practices, but not before those failures helped contribute to a 4.5-million litre oil spill in 2011 near Peace River, followed by a 463,000-litre oil leak into the Red Deer River a year later.
In 2015, a Nexen Energy pipeline south of Fort McMurray, Alta. burst, spilling about five million litres of emulsion including about 1.65 million litres of oil near its Long Lake oilsands operation. The AER's investigation into the incident continues, but Nexen's preliminary conclusion was that the pipeline design was incompatible with the ground conditions, and wasn't installed properly.
"There's been a lot of learnings in our industry that have resulted from some very unfortunate incidents," said Patrick Smyth, vice-president of safety and engineering at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
Smyth said CEPA, which represents pipeline companies like TransCanada and Plains Midstream, have improved their safety practices in recent years.
He points to the fact that CEPA members spilled only about 2,500 litres of oil in 2015, with companies implementing stricter safety practices and using better inspection tools to prevent leaks.
But even as companies make improvements on safety, Fleming said getting pipelines towards the higher safety standards of industries like airlines will likely require significant financial sacrifice.
"To be able to do that, you need to have a very cautious approach to doing work, and that's something that's hard financially," said Fleming. "It does have some cost implications that we are often very uncomfortable talking about."
Human error - whether it's burying a pipeline too shallow or not fastening bolts tight enough- is increasingly a factor contributing to pipeline leaks, federal data suggests.
Figures compiled by the National Energy Board show that in the past three years, incorrect operation - which covers everything from failing to follow procedures to using equipment improperly - has caused an average of 20 leaks per year. That's up from an average of four annually in the previous six years.
"It's both probably one of the most difficult things for an organization to deal with, but also the most important," said Mark Fleming, a professor of safety culture at Saint Mary's University in Halifax.
Fleming said operators have made improvements in safety practices, but to achieve the higher levels of safety required by other industries such as the airline or nuclear power sectors would require extreme attention to detail.
What may seem inconsequential at first can later contribute to a disaster, Fleming said.
"It's like a ball balancing on the top of a pyramid," he said.
"Safety, particularly very high levels of safety, requires constant attention and effort. And the tendency is for it to degrade."
Pipelines installed in the U.S. in the past five years have the highest rate of failure of any built since the 1920s, and human error is partially to blame, said Carl Weimer, executive director of the Washington-based Pipeline Safety Trust.
"A lot of new pipelines being put in the ground just aren't being installed right, or things don't get tightened up quite enough, so within the first year or two things fail," said Weimer.
The consequences of the improper management of pipelines have come to bear in several spills in recent years, resulting in oil coursing down rivers, gushing onto city streets and contaminating many hectares of Canadian wilderness.
Alberta Energy Regulator investigations into Plains Midstream Canada, for one, found that the company hadn't inspected its pipelines frequently or thoroughly enough, did a poor job of managing the ground around its pipelines and hadn't properly trained control room staff.
A subsequent audit found the company had improved its safety practices, but not before those failures helped contribute to a 4.5-million litre oil spill in 2011 near Peace River, followed by a 463,000-litre oil leak into the Red Deer River a year later.
In 2015, a Nexen Energy pipeline south of Fort McMurray, Alta. burst, spilling about five million litres of emulsion including about 1.65 million litres of oil near its Long Lake oilsands operation. The AER's investigation into the incident continues, but Nexen's preliminary conclusion was that the pipeline design was incompatible with the ground conditions, and wasn't installed properly.
"There's been a lot of learnings in our industry that have resulted from some very unfortunate incidents," said Patrick Smyth, vice-president of safety and engineering at the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association.
Smyth said CEPA, which represents pipeline companies like TransCanada and Plains Midstream, have improved their safety practices in recent years.
He points to the fact that CEPA members spilled only about 2,500 litres of oil in 2015, with companies implementing stricter safety practices and using better inspection tools to prevent leaks.
But even as companies make improvements on safety, Fleming said getting pipelines towards the higher safety standards of industries like airlines will likely require significant financial sacrifice.
"To be able to do that, you need to have a very cautious approach to doing work, and that's something that's hard financially," said Fleming. "It does have some cost implications that we are often very uncomfortable talking about."
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Copied from castanets news service:
The Canadian Press - Jan 31 4:38 pm
The British Columbia Supreme Court is being asked to reverse the provincial government's decision to approve a pipeline proposal over an alleged conflict of interest between the premier and the project's proponents.
Democracy Watch and PIPE UP Network have applied for a judicial review of the environmental assessment certificate granted earlier this year by the province for Kinder Morgan Canada's $6.8-billion project.
Documents filed Tuesday in court say the approval process is tainted by $560,000 in political donations made over six years to B.C.'s Liberal party by Kinder Morgan and various oil shippers interested in using the pipeline.
The application also points to $300,000 that Premier Christy Clark received while leader of the B.C. Liberals, although the premier announced recently she would no longer take the party's $50,000 a year stipend.
The advocacy groups say in their petition that any reasonable, informed and thoughtful person could not help but conclude that the government would have at least been subconsciously affected by the financial contributions.
None of the allegations have been proven in court and neither Clark, nor her ministers of environment and natural gas who were named in the lawsuit were immediately available to comment.
The Trans Mountain project would build a second pipeline that runs from near Edmonton to Burnaby and would nearly triple the carrying capacity and increase tanker traffic sevenfold.
The Canadian Press - Jan 31 4:38 pm
The British Columbia Supreme Court is being asked to reverse the provincial government's decision to approve a pipeline proposal over an alleged conflict of interest between the premier and the project's proponents.
Democracy Watch and PIPE UP Network have applied for a judicial review of the environmental assessment certificate granted earlier this year by the province for Kinder Morgan Canada's $6.8-billion project.
Documents filed Tuesday in court say the approval process is tainted by $560,000 in political donations made over six years to B.C.'s Liberal party by Kinder Morgan and various oil shippers interested in using the pipeline.
The application also points to $300,000 that Premier Christy Clark received while leader of the B.C. Liberals, although the premier announced recently she would no longer take the party's $50,000 a year stipend.
The advocacy groups say in their petition that any reasonable, informed and thoughtful person could not help but conclude that the government would have at least been subconsciously affected by the financial contributions.
None of the allegations have been proven in court and neither Clark, nor her ministers of environment and natural gas who were named in the lawsuit were immediately available to comment.
The Trans Mountain project would build a second pipeline that runs from near Edmonton to Burnaby and would nearly triple the carrying capacity and increase tanker traffic sevenfold.
Ryan A
Well-Known Member
I pipeline for a living and love it. We're busier than ever! Great wages and room for advancement if you work hard and you actually feel your contributing to the countries growth financially. Plus it gives me lots of time to fish which is the best part. So if your against pipelines maybe park your gasoline or diesel engine boat . I suggest sly karma and Clint r lead this charge in being the 1st ones to ground those suckers. Happy fishing boys!
sly_karma
Crew Member
Ryan, trotting out that old argument is just lazy thinking. This isn't a binary situation where people who oppose new pipeline projects somehow forfeit their right to put gas in their vehicle or boat. The industry as it is now is serving our needs just fine. The pumps aren't going to shut off tomorrow if Kinder Morgan doesn't go ahead. I don't deny that currently we all depend on oil at many levels; my objection is to expansion of the western Canada oil industry, for which the new pipeline projects are required. I'm in favour of the continued use of pipelines for bulk transport of existing production, they're easily the safest of the current methods of moving petro products. I'm also in favour of pipeline transport of oil sands dilbit to central and eastern Canada to fulfill domestic needs there, and reduce or eliminate the need to import OPEC oil via tanker.
The Canadian oil industry is profitable now, although of course it would be better if prices increase. Industry strategists see the same changes looming that I do - peak oil around 2030-2035 and then a longterm, structural decline in prices. The new pipeline projects are wanted to get the most oil out of the ground as quickly as possible and sell it profitably before that happens. These proposed pipelines only create short term construction jobs, yet they carry significant risk because of the ocean transport from their terminals. The oil companies don't want to ride out the last few years of the Oil Age selling at north american prices, they want the supposed big bucks of world pricing. Personally, I don't care to support the oil industry's short term profit vision. My view is that their last kick at the can carries too much risk for the community and insufficient benefit. Everyone has a different view of where the balance point lies between risk and benefit; respect for yours but I don't share it.
The Canadian oil industry is profitable now, although of course it would be better if prices increase. Industry strategists see the same changes looming that I do - peak oil around 2030-2035 and then a longterm, structural decline in prices. The new pipeline projects are wanted to get the most oil out of the ground as quickly as possible and sell it profitably before that happens. These proposed pipelines only create short term construction jobs, yet they carry significant risk because of the ocean transport from their terminals. The oil companies don't want to ride out the last few years of the Oil Age selling at north american prices, they want the supposed big bucks of world pricing. Personally, I don't care to support the oil industry's short term profit vision. My view is that their last kick at the can carries too much risk for the community and insufficient benefit. Everyone has a different view of where the balance point lies between risk and benefit; respect for yours but I don't share it.
Clint r
Well-Known Member
Not quite as rosy a picture as your painting there Ryan. Read up especially the part about Canada's long term oil and gas "health" more importantly COMPREHEND what your reading.
The Canadian Press - Jan 30 3:07 pm
Rising optimism in the Canadian oil and gas industry prompted a higher 2017 drilling forecast on Monday, but doubts continue to swirl about Canada's ability to compete for future energy investment capital with a Donald Trump-led United States.
The Petroleum Services Association of Canada said it expects 5,150 wells to be drilled in Canada this year, up 23 per cent or 975 wells over the 2017 forecast it released in early November.
But Tim McMillan, president of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, warned the longer term health of Canada's oil and gas sector is at risk because of competition from the American pro-business policies of President Trump.
PSAC president Mark Salkeld acknowledged that the oilfield services industry, despite slowly recovering with better oil and gas prices, is still far from healthy after more than two years of falling activity.
"We had a field services sector in Canada that could drill 10,000 to 12,000 wells per year and we're only drilling 4,000 or 5,000," he said.
"Even though a lot of equipment was sold and a lot of people were let go, there's still a lot of capacity to do more than 5,000 wells per year. So we're still hurting."
PSAC said a total of 4,100 wells were drilled in 2016 in Canada, down from 11,226 wells in 2014 and 5,394 in 2015.
Analysts expect higher oil prices will result in generally higher fourth-quarter profit reports as Canada's biggest oil companies roll out their fourth-quarter results over the next month or so. The earnings parade starts with Imperial Oil (TSX:IMO) on Tuesday.
McMillan said at an event in Calgary he is worried about investors taking their money to the United States instead of Canada.
"Some of the policies the U.S. government is talking about - bringing more federal lands on, lowering corporate taxes, looking at their regulatory standards - with the express purpose of being more competitive and attracting more capital, is something we need to be very mindful of," he said.
"We have reached out to governments across Canada and federally to say we think that this requires a Team Canada approach at the highest levels."
He said a key answer is building new pipelines to create alternative markets to the United States for Canadian oil.
At the same event, Alberta Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd said the province is already meeting with the federal government and Canadian industry players to talk about enhancing Canadian competitiveness.
Last edited:
ILHG
Crew Member
I am with Ryan on this one. If folks don't want pipelines pushing hydrocarbons in BC due to environmental concerns than ALL hydrocarbons should be banned from being transported in the province. This would include all refined products like gasoline. I think the twinning of the line is a no brainer. the line expansion will allow Canada to get the highest price for the oil they sell. It is truly not just Alberta but the whole country that benefits.
GLG
Well-Known Member
AND if it was not clear that fossil fuels have an adverse effect there is this new study that links burning fossil fuels to dementia and it's not the first one at that.
Air pollution may lead to dementia in older women
Tiny, dirty airborne particles called PM2.5 invade the brain and wreak havoc, study suggests.
Date: January 31, 2017
Source: University of Southern California
Summary:
Tiny air pollution particles -- the type that mainly comes from power plants and automobiles -- may greatly increase the chance of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. Scientists and engineers found that older women who live in places with fine particulate matter exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency's standard are 81 percent more at risk for global cognitive decline and 92 percent more likely to develop dementia, including Alzheimer's.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131124137.htm
Air pollution may lead to dementia in older women
Tiny, dirty airborne particles called PM2.5 invade the brain and wreak havoc, study suggests.
Date: January 31, 2017
Source: University of Southern California
Summary:
Tiny air pollution particles -- the type that mainly comes from power plants and automobiles -- may greatly increase the chance of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. Scientists and engineers found that older women who live in places with fine particulate matter exceeding the US Environmental Protection Agency's standard are 81 percent more at risk for global cognitive decline and 92 percent more likely to develop dementia, including Alzheimer's.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/170131124137.htm
Did you not bother to either read nor understand both sly karma and clint's posts above? Using this bizarre logic - Since I don't wish to buy a Ford Pinto - therefore I believe all cars should be banned.
sly_karma
Crew Member
Not sure if serious. Any of it.
ILHG
Crew Member
Karma, it is true. Canada gets a price deduction of $13-15 per barrel of oil going to the USA. Not to mention the cost to transport by rail. It works out to be almost $30 million/day in lost revenue to the country..
GLG
Well-Known Member
Well that's odd... I thought the reason why dilbit sold at discount because it was an inferior product to WTI. I wonder why they don't discount Canadian Light Sweet by the same amount? Care to let us know.... asking for a friend.
http://boereport.com/markets/
added... todays price to the nearest dollar
West Texas Intermediate (WTI) $53/barrel
Canadian Light Sweet $50/barrel
Western Canadian Select $38/barrel
Last edited:
Ryan A
Well-Known Member
I get the peak oil argument karma and I also respect your opinion as well, and you are right we will one day use up this resource especially with new technology down the line. As of right now though we can only get say 50% of the reserves, who knows how much longer it will take to get the rest. Sure their are projections what technology may bring but nobody is certain. All I know is that we are busy as hell, busy as I've ever been and the projects to be completed are many.
GLG
Well-Known Member
It was never about the real price because if it was then they would compare it to Maya-22 at tidewater. Those two are very similar in API and sulfur content. Hard to find a price on that but you could find Mayan and that's a blend also like WCS. Oh another fun fact is that WCS is also a blend. Heavy oil, condensate and sweet oil. The reason for the pipeline is to grab market share and ship volume. That way production can go up and keep the party going (investors) and lock in the infrastructure for 50 years. Here is a link to what the price you can expect for WCS at tidewater with your competition . Notice that it's not nearly WTI dollar amounts.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=IMX2810004&f=M
sly_karma
Crew Member
Oil sands reserves are huge but they're expensive to bring to market, they're already at a cost disadvantage to many competitor producers. When the oil prices settle backwards in not very many years, it may be uneconomical to exploit them. There are resource towns and regions all over the world that are a shadow of their former selves because of changes to resource demand or pricing. The industry had dollar signs in its eyes five years ago when we had >$100/barrel oil and a lot of these projects were conceived then - make it big NOW, because these days are coming to an end. It's not hard to envisage some of these pipelines mothballed in twenty years from now because of excess capacity and reduced demand. Do we allow the industry to pressure us into projects where the rationale seems to be short term gain before an early exit?
- Status
Similar threads
