Federal Government Approves Kinder Morgan and Line 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Id rather a different boost to the Canadian economy rather than oil, but its not the reality. You want Gov initiative Green Industries to try? We all know how those gov pushed industries go.
Lets line the pockets of guys like Ryan A and ALL the other associated industries, they tend to spend like mad when the good times roll, thats good for everyone. If not, you may want to pray they dont reform corp taxes and reduce regs down south, because thats going to make Canada fairly unattractive place to do business. Just sayin....
 
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?
Accidentally deleted my post so I'll try again.. the oilsands are not our only reserve or the only pipeline that Canada has. The media has duped people for years who aren't in the industry or who's town is not in the industry into believing that. In all my years pipeline I have only worked near ft.mac once, right now we are building gathering systems for newly drilled wells. As for the peak oil argument, people will debate that until the last drop is pulled out..
 
Id rather a different boost to the Canadian economy rather than oil, but its not the reality.

Oil is today's reality, but it's flawed thinking to imagine it will always be tomorrow's. Barely more than a hundred years ago, coal was the undisputed energy powerhouse of the industrial world, seemingly never to be challenged. Coal was shipped all over the world to fuel the world's trade carried by ships and trains, just as petro products are now. Coal fired steam engines ran everything, where are those today? A handful of heritage railways is about it. In the period 1920-50, Cape Breton was the Fort McMurray of its time, with thousands of men working in mining. Today? Not one mine operating, still economically depressed. Used to be plenty of coal mines on Vancouver Island too, all gone now. Ships don't burn coal any more.

Wool is another industry with ancient origins that at one time was the dominant player in the world and yet now struggles for a share of the fabric market even despite its 'renewable resource' status. Few people a century ago would have thought that wool would be knocked off its perch by a technological advance: manmade fibres. Today, the technologies for clean energy already exist and are rapidly expanding their foothold. We can see it coming, yet we refuse to acknowledge it, or act. Why invest in pipelines or LNG plants with a fifty-plus year lifespan? That just feeds the false notion that the oil and gas industry is "too big to fail." History has proven there's no such thing.
 
Yup, industries dominate, then get dominated. That's the cycle. Your point is valid...for coal.
My point, which valid for the present situation, is let the private sector play out this resource and create a boost at a time when Canada will need it. It's as simple as that. All this cloud talk about other options and the hate on oil is a circle jerk and counter productive.
The next level will come one day, but for now oil is too cheap for a alternative to enter and thrive on its own.
 
The transition won't be instant, but it's already started. Hybrid cars, electric cars, wind farms, solar arrays are already here and just think where any of them were just a decade ago. The transition will actually be slower in north america because our economy and infrastructure are shaped by longtime access to cheap fuels. Third world countries with much less developed power grids and fuel distribution systems will quickly embrace widely dispersed local generation like solar and wind because of the low startup costs and lack of resistance by entrenched utilities. Look at the way cell phones were taken up in developing countries - high usership everywhere now, and for most people, the first phone they've ever had access to. They leapfrogged right over landline networks because of infrastructure cost. This won't happen as quickly in developed countries because there are highly developed, mostly paid-for networks for distribution of energy and they're relatively inexpensive...for now.

By the way, the north american electric grid is going to see some major changes too. Neither it nor oil will be devastated so much as eroded, but both will be much changed by dispersed energy generation like solar and wind. It will be a revisit of sorts to the very earliest days of electricity, when local communities and farmers had windmills or small water turbines. Power was generated and distributed on a small-scale, local basis. The future electric grid will have a blend of local production and consumption, with links to a national system so as to even out some of the surges and dips, and there'll be far fewer big, centralised power generation facilities. Hydro dams will continue but those resources are for the most part already fully exploited and new ones like Site C are the exception not the norm. If I was the owner or a major stakeholder in a utility that owned and operated power transmission infrastructure, I'd take a serious look at selling the assets. They're probably worth top dollar right now, maybe a handful of years more. They'll still be worth something as the decades pass, but lots of mods to the system will need to be made, and many people will withdraw from the grid completely, so there'll be a dwindling subscriber base to pay for those changes. Next time you read a news item about a government selloff of power grid assets, this could well be what's ultimately behind it. Well, that or some politicians with an urgent need for some quick cash to balance a budget.
 
I'd be wary of making predictions. The economics have to line up, as they did with Tesla, but right now, they don't. Look at the green industry's value since the end of 2014. It only made economic sense while oil was above $100 a barrel. Now it's not a natural progression, but an ideology pushed progression.
Anyway, that's beside the point, I'm all for the pipeline. Trust me, the green industry benefits from it too, handsomely.
Big oil is a textbook version of trickle down.
 
Some interesting points of view. I agree with some from both sides.
FYI, BC still ships far more coal out than oil. I doubt that twinning the pipeline will let oil catch up to our coal exports... volume wise that is.
 
Coking coal though, TC. Higher value, fewer volatiles, less ash, less GHG emission. Can't make iron and steel without coke.
 
Is it peak oil or peak demand? I suspect that we will reach peak demand then we will have a oil glut again and the price will drop leaving the worker bees holding the bag. My advice is start socking away some cash for that day.

 
Coking coal though, TC. Higher value, fewer volatiles, less ash, less GHG emission. Can't make iron and steel without coke.
True, but it's not all coke coal. 26 million tons of metallurgic coal, 8 million tons of thermal coal last year...
 
True, but it's not all coke coal. 26 million tons of metallurgic coal, 8 million tons of thermal coal last year...

Those look like 2015 numbers and things have changed in 2016. Your ratio of 70% met / 30% thermal is now 80% met / 20% thermal. The world market has dropped for both but it's the thermal side that has taken the biggest hit. In fact our friends to the south, that use us to ship their thermal coal, are currently paying us not to ship much. It's called a take-or-pay commitments and are recorder in Westshore's financials. I track Westshore Terminals as it's a leading indicator of what is going on in the world.
Here is a couple of links that I follow if your interested.

https://www.google.com/finance?q=TSE:WTE&ei=6VR4VrioJM_xjAGnmIDYCg

http://www.westshore.com/#/financereports
 
I understand it wasn't so long ago that it was 50/50 metallurgic to thermal so I guess it's improving emissions wise. Although I've read some opinion that it's a flailing Chinese economy reducing the demand for thermal as much as it is alternative energy sources...
Pretty sure the coal companies would have no problem shipping more thermal if someone asked for it. Australia shovels the stuff out in great quantities as well.
Anyway, does anyone else not think if we're going to pipe more oil to our coast, that it might be better in a brand new pipe? Although all the steel seems to be coming from on China. Never been any problems with quality control in that department
 
There's really only two meaningful coal resource areas currently being exploited in BC, the northeast and the Elk Valley. Both have massive reserves, but they're folded and angular rather than the level, defined seams worked by underground mining. Ideally, BC mines would select the coking coal in preference to the steaming, but in practice seams of both appear at the pit floor. You have to remove the steaming to keep accessing the coking, and it doesn't make sense to stockpile it if you can sell it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top