Kinder Morgan IPO and $25/barrel oil (MSNBC)

Status
Not open for further replies.
GLG said:
It's true that BC does get oil from the KM pipeline for use and export through a terminal on the coast but that terminal can also import crude also. I hear that there is a glut of oil out there and world shippers are looking for new clients. Do you think that Alberta could stop BC from importing oil from someone else?
Click to expand...

Lol,, so what you saying is,,, you can't live without oil or gas. You would just as soon buy it from another country. Like the US that just backed out of the Paris agreement, that has shelved most environmental laws and will be going back into the Arctic to drill, they have no carbon tax, no stake in our country. None the less you would buy their oil so you could keep all your tanks full of the juice you are all so addicted to lol.

Lefties,, lol..

Not sure where you got your info on on where your NG is going, I'm sure some goes to the oil sands but believe me and I know I drill for it by the way, most of those companies could be easily self sufficient on NG and a good percentage of them are. I drilled NG wells for 5 years straight in southern AB for one of the biggest oilsands players, about 60% of it is used for themselves the rest the excess they sell off. I currently drill for one of the biggest players in your province, over 90% of our product goes through AB down to the Chicago hub. Total NG usage for oilsands production including all operations from camps to extraction is around 2.0 bill cubic feet /day, BC NG production is currently around 10 billion cubes /day is that a majority. Alberta itself produce around 9.0 bill cubic feet. In Alberta total gas sales to oil sands producers is around 29% of gas sales. In Alberta alone total usage of production by the province which includes oil sands sales is 50% the rest is sold off. Why would they sell it to a local company for $2.80 a gig Canadian dollars rather than the US for $3.20 a gig US dollars explain this one to me please cause I know we sure don't. But hey what do I know, I've only been in the business for 32 years, hey ask the Tyee they'll know lol.

But I could really careless about any of these lines. I'm in agreement personally I think there's enough lines and rails we can sustain a good living for ourselves out here and we are. Many lost jobs, many had to migrate back home to where ever it was they came from but for the most part local people did ok, we kept busy and we will continue to. It was all going to fast anyways, it doesn't hurt to scale it back some. There will come a day for it all, we'll extract it at a steady pace and keep going. We have a product the world is addicted to, a product the world economies are based on, whats the likely hood that's all going be thrown out the door in 8 years lol, not likely. Nope she's all good, let the people fight, let the politicians hold you all for ransom over broken promises, like politicians have anything to do with it anyways, their all just puppets and we are just fools to think they can. Tax payers dollars being sucked up in all of this, and for what, over lies.
The US is making two of the biggest blunders in natural recourse history and mark my words on this I know this business. First they are out drilling themselves. The Eagleford shale play will out play itself, their last big play the Bakken is already on a huge decline it's toast they emptied it hard. The same will be of the Eagleford, they will drain it within 10 years I give it, well of any significant resources. It's too much to fast, fracking is a blessing as well as a curse in this business. Our wells come on hard but do decline at a fast rate also. It's crazy how much we have to drill just to maintain production never mind increase it. I see the US being in dire need of recourses in 20 years. The second big mistake they are making and this is a huge one. Trump wants to sell off a huge amount of their oil reserves. He is talking about half, where is that going to leave them when it's gone and their resources are drained, in bad shape that's where. So why this rant, well who's their neighbour who's sitting on the 3rd largest oil reserves in the word,, you guessed it Canada. And we have the lines built to supply them or soon will. They will need us and they will buy it from us and do to the fact we are being held back from going hog wild at it, we will still have it in the ground. What we drill in Canada is a joke compared to how they go at it in the states, right now in the US there are over 900 rigs drilling, in Canada 99 it's not even comparable. They will run out, we will be left with ours in resource.

So really as far as I'm concerned I'm happy all this is taking place, it's great. Our oilsands ( and by ours I mean all Canadians we all stand to share in it ) and your natural gas recourses will sustain us as a nation for many many years to come.

One thing I will note. At one time if anything positive could be said of the NDP especially in BC is that they once stood up for the working man and the labourers, they backed unions and union work heck they were nothing more than a government of the unions. With this deal that they have made with the Greens they have thrown the working man out the door. They very well could throw out of the province billions in investment dollars, thousands of union construction jobs, hundreds of union shipping/port jobs, how many more tugs would be need in the ports all good paying union jobs, hundreds of line maintenance jobs, the list goes on, all lost. Where is the loyalty to the working man here. Not to mention what's going to happen if Site C is stopped. They are in there working now, hundreds of people on the job already How many jobs will be lost there. The court cases that are going to take place over all this, the billions of dollars that may have to be payed to these companies. Who's going to have to pay for all that, you guys will, not me or Albertans, BC tax payers will foot the bill. Deals were in place, promises made, these companies will not lay down and take nothing, you all will have to pay them for work not done. The NDP have abondoned their purpose and their roots to pander to the few that don't seem to care about jobs or understand where money to pay for the social programs we all hold so dear comes from. I just can't fathom this one, I really can't. This is from a financial stance not an oil and gas issue.

K I'm done, sorry for the grammar or spelling, take care.
 
Last edited:
Below is a link regarding a replacement for the li-ion battery. One of the developers is the guy who was instrumental in inventing the li-ion battery. This sodium battery has triple the range of lion batteries, is made out of cheap commonly found material, and doesn't appear to have some of the safety issues that lion batteries do. I believe that this will be the game changer in terms of electric vehicles and have huge effects on the demand for oil. I think it will ultimately make the current dispute over pipelines a moot point.

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...ctrolyte-same-guy-pioneered-lithium-ion-cells
T2
 
There's a lot of binary opinions here. By that I mean people either see oil as essential and eternal, or that it's a doomed industry and those who support it are backwards looking fools. I think the reality is that neither scenario will happen in my lifetime. Long range shipping and rail are pretty damn efficient on diesel power, and storage batteries small and light enough to not substantially degrade payloads are not high on the research priority lists compared to the hundreds millions of units in potential sales for personal vehicles. Likewise, the plastics and textiles industries aren't going away. There's a substantial baseline for a fossil fuels industry well after the sales of electric cars hit critical mass. Oil will settle into a place where it's another commodity like wheat, cotton, wool or coal: still needed, still employing people, but minus the rock star wages and headline-grabbing deals.

Coal used to be high flying glamour product like oil, but what person in the street could tell you what a ton costs today? Coal literally fuelled the industrial revolution and was a critical strategic commodity for 200 years, the world's factories, navies and trading fleets relied on it. Entire industrial regions developed because of their proximity to coal deposits, displacing older mill towns that had grown up because they were on fast-flowing rivers that could provide water power for machinery. Cape Breton, NS was the Fort McMurray of the 1920-50s period, but has suffered massive stagnation as the mines all closed. Oil industry people would be well advised to take note of what history teaches us: nothing lasts forever. Commodity booms are followed by commodity busts, and most of them never regain their former glory.

There's a ticking clock for oil in its current format and the big players know it. Some are diversifying into renewables, others are trying to grab as market share as possible now. OPEC refuses to reduce production because it's trying to force more expensive producers like deepwater, fracking and oil sands out of the market so they can reduce supply and force up price for one last heyday. Projects like KM are another version of 'get it to market now while it's still worth plenty'. There's some short term construction jobs, some mid term profit for the project backers, and then... it's probably surplus infrastructure that could well be mothballed or run at low capacity.

You can't change the future of oil in the global economy by building a few pipelines.
 
cracked_ribs said:
Well, societies don't invest...
Click to expand...
They sure do, CR. They invest in their kids, their future; and invest in information exchange - which is likely the arguably single biggest difference that has made humans so successful verses other life forms; facilitated by the development of language and the growth in brain size over the past hundreds of thousands of years of human civilization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence

In contrast - It's only been the past some 243 years that we have had "capitalism", and only since the late 1970s - have we had this successful derail of governance mechanisms by those buying into the deregulation rhetoric from Milton Friedman: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman
cracked_ribs said:
I'm not arguing that we shouldn't do it...but remember that if, as David Suzuki once said, we're all on a bus together that's going to drive off a cliff if nobody does anything, it might be best if we all stuck our feet out and tried to slow it down. That was his solution, anyway.
Click to expand...
Increasingly desperate David Suzuki staples left nostril shut to cut carbon emissions by 50%
Sophie Kohn · CBC Comedy · January 26, 2016
http://www.cbc.ca/comedy/funnystuff...-shut-to-cut-carbon-emissions-by-50-1.3630740
 
No, in all of those cases, the money or other resources to pay for every single discrete, quantifiable service or achievement was invested by an individual or group of individuals with signatory power, and frequently without the consent of the people whose money paid for the purchase.

In the case of information exchange, participation is exclusively voluntary and individual. No society has collectively decided to participate; in fact the nature of collective decision-making is itself abstract and inherently vague. If each individual has chosen participate, the decision is individual; if a group of participants within the society have made the decision, questions remain about the ability of those forced to comply to affect the decision, not to mention whether the decision can be said to be on behalf of society if compliance is forced. And in the case of decisions made generations ago, there is no real sense in which the decision-makers can be construed to be participants in "the society".

If you invest in your own children, it's your choice to do so and as such voluntary and individual. If your children benefit from services such as public school, the entire program has been signed into existence by a series of individuals, some elected and some appointed, and many long dead - the taxes used to pay for this service are taken from individuals and in general participation is not voluntary; the structures in place to force contribution are entirely populated by individuals; the legislation drafted by individuals and for the overwhelming majority of us, our participation is limited to voting for people over whom we have extremely limited control when it comes to the creation of legislation. Public services, therefore, are also paid for and created by individuals.

Societies "investing in their future" is a fundamentally mythological concept; it presumes not only the participation of the members via "collective decision-making" which is, as referenced above, inherently problematic, but also that the members share a goal or vision in regards to the future. Not only that, but attempts to fulfil the rhetorical concept of "investing in the future" can be easily broken down into concrete and measurable steps which are subject to the same frailties as above: the ambiguity of collective decision-making as a concept, the role of the individual in carrying out the many and sundry sub-tasks in order to complete the larger goal, and so on.

Society is a nebulous concept by definition; an amorphous group of people without a concrete decision-making structure which is voluntarily agreed to by the participants cannot in any sense be described as making investments on its own account.
 
you might benefit from a better understanding of what governance is; CR. It's *NOT* the current version of the stock market and collusive/corruptible/destructive capitalism...
 
agentaqua said:
you might benefit from a better understanding of what governance is; CR. It's *NOT* the current version of the stock market and collusive/corruptible/destructive capitalism...
Click to expand...

At times capitalism can be manipulated for short term profit by individuals. But usually it is aided an abetted by the corruption in government. The bail out of the banks in 08 in the states is a perfect example.

Those banks knew they were too big to fail and the government would bail them out. In a truly capitalisitic society those institutions would have failed and a new breed would have emerged, albeit with the people going through years of hell.

The beauty of capitalism is the competition. At the heart of it, an individual or group of individuals invest money in an idea and the free will of the rest of society decides whether that idea will succeed based on its merits. When government gets involved efficiency and effectiveness plummets.

Just look at any gov run enterprises. Horrible.

Capitalism isn't the problem, overreaching government is the problem, manifesting in a Crony Capitalism which we have now.

Without free markets, which you seem to see have pure disdain for, how does the price of goods get decided?

Who decides the price of eggs, milk, gas, etc etc?
 
Last edited:
cracked_ribs said:
No, in all of those cases, the money or other resources to pay for every single discrete, quantifiable service or achievement was invested by an individual or group of individuals with signatory power, and frequently without the consent of the people whose money paid for the purchase.

In the case of information exchange, participation is exclusively voluntary and individual. No society has collectively decided to participate; in fact the nature of collective decision-making is itself abstract and inherently vague. If each individual has chosen participate, the decision is individual; if a group of participants within the society have made the decision, questions remain about the ability of those forced to comply to affect the decision, not to mention whether the decision can be said to be on behalf of society if compliance is forced. And in the case of decisions made generations ago, there is no real sense in which the decision-makers can be construed to be participants in "the society".

If you invest in your own children, it's your choice to do so and as such voluntary and individual. If your children benefit from services such as public school, the entire program has been signed into existence by a series of individuals, some elected and some appointed, and many long dead - the taxes used to pay for this service are taken from individuals and in general participation is not voluntary; the structures in place to force contribution are entirely populated by individuals; the legislation drafted by individuals and for the overwhelming majority of us, our participation is limited to voting for people over whom we have extremely limited control when it comes to the creation of legislation. Public services, therefore, are also paid for and created by individuals.

Societies "investing in their future" is a fundamentally mythological concept; it presumes not only the participation of the members via "collective decision-making" which is, as referenced above, inherently problematic, but also that the members share a goal or vision in regards to the future. Not only that, but attempts to fulfil the rhetorical concept of "investing in the future" can be easily broken down into concrete and measurable steps which are subject to the same frailties as above: the ambiguity of collective decision-making as a concept, the role of the individual in carrying out the many and sundry sub-tasks in order to complete the larger goal, and so on.

Society is a nebulous concept by definition; an amorphous group of people without a concrete decision-making structure which is voluntarily agreed to by the participants cannot in any sense be described as making investments on its own account.
Click to expand...

Well put.

In this day and age, with the information available to everyone, the decisions are generally made by consumers in all manner of ways.

In a free market with minimal government intervention, the people will decide.

Just look at the companies in the states that are still going ahead with green initiatives even with the States pulling out of Paris. They understand that the people/consumers want to spend their money with companies that have an environmental conscience.

Here lies the beauty of capitalism. The people regulate themselves by consensus, you still need a governing body, but with an educated people, day to day consumer wants/needs are addressed.
 
Last edited:
OldBlackDog said:
http://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Tech/Japanese-technology-squeezes-more-power-out-of-coal
Click to expand...
Interesting concept. Coke ovens have done something similar for decades: captured the gas driven off the oven, removed the impurities and volatiles, then used the gas as fuel for the ovens. That suggests that this CoolGen system will have to do something with those same by products (tar, benzene, ammonia, moisture). The first two are probably being converted into burnable form and used for firing the boiler, hence the uptick in energy produced. It will be a tricky system to get right, inline re-gen and by-products processing of a natural raw material that has fairly variable chemistry can't be easy.

Japan really must be serious about getting out of nuclear energy, because they have essentially zero coal reserves of their own.
 
I've never understood how a rational person can make Nuclear power the bad guy and not the incompetent fools who cause the disasters.

Nuclear power is a large part of the answer to our "dirty" energy problems.
 
Seanut said:
Maybe cut and paste OBD. Can't read without subscribing
Click to expand...

  • Date: 07/06/17
  • The Wall Street Journal
American oil exports are emerging as a disruptive new force in global markets.
The U.S. exported 1 million barrels of oil a day during some months so far this year—double the pace of 2016—and is on track to average that amount for all of 2017, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of data from the U.S. Energy Department and the International Trade Commission.

BF-AR295A_OILEX_9U_20170606180305.jpg



In another era, a domestic glut and low prices, currently hovering under $50 a barrel, might have caused companies to slow the pace of drilling. But since Congress lifted a ban on oil exports at the end of 2015, shipments out of Texas and Louisiana have skyrocketed, taking the fruits of the U.S. fracking revolution to new markets.

“The glut of crude around the world, coupled with extremely low prices to rent oil tankers, is upending petroleum flows,” said Kurt Barrow, vice president at consulting firm IHS Markit.

While U.S. exports make up just 1% of global oil volumes, they are a new factor helping to tamp down prices and keep them rangebound between $45 and $55 a barrel. U.S. oil prices on Wednesday declined more than 4% to around $46 a barrel after weekly inventory data showed a surprise increase in stockpiles.
Exports represent a relief valve for U.S. drillers, who are ramping up production at a pace to surpass 10 million barrels a day, a new record, by next year if not sooner.

The U.S., which shipped more than 110 million barrels to foreign buyers from January to April, according to ITC data, is benefiting in part from a decision by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to temporarily reduce output.

The U.S. still imports a lot of foreign crude, averaging 10 million barrels a day last year, because it is the world’s No. 1 oil consumer. But that level has dropped sharply in recent years.

A major reason why U.S. exports are rising is that American crude has been selling at a discount of roughly $2.50 a barrel to the international oil-price benchmark, Brent, for much of this year.

That spread makes it profitable to pay to transport U.S. oil to farther flung locales. If U.S. oil’s discount to Brent gets bigger, American shipments will ramp up. If it shrinks, less U.S. oil will flow overseas.

Another big reason for the increase in exports is so-called back-haul economics, said Mason Hamilton, an analyst with the Energy Department. Tankers carrying crude from the Middle East to Texas used to unload and go home empty. Now U.S. oil can be loaded on those tankers and make a pit stop in Europe on their way back….

China, the world’s largest oil importer, traditionally gets more than half of its crude from OPEC members like Saudi Arabia, Angola and Iran. But China, which imported a record 8.6 million barrels a day in December 2016, is stepping up imports of U.S. oil, as well as crude from Brazil, after its own production dropped significantly last year, according to the Energy Department.

“We believe that more U.S. oil production will be needed to meet future global demand and offset production declines in China and Mexico during 2017 and 2018,” said Rob Thummel, managing director for Tortoise Advisors, an energy investment adviser with $16.8 billion under management.

Full post
Back to topBack to Energy NewsPrint this pageEmail this article
 
Clint r said:
Yep. When I hear Notley and her crowd start the threats I can't help think of Oka Quebec. Govt thought it was gonna expropriate some land and sell to a developer to build a golf course. Turns out it only took 70 people to stand their ground and force their hand. Unfortunately 2 died but the end result was it cost the Feds millions and a lot of bad press. And in the end... no golf course and the people won. I know there's a world of difference between there and here and pipelines and golf courses but at heart the principles the same. Try and force something that people don't want and things could get ugly. In BC we have a lot of radicals and there's no doubt in my mind that when push comes to shove there's gonna be a lot of surprised polititions. Just ask Christie.
Click to expand...


What about the other 75% who want it? Should democracy not prevail? Is that not what my grandfather died for in WWII?

What if people go after the protesters? There is lots of rumbling going on about doing just that. Let me make a promise.. I will show up myself and fight anyone who gets in the way of the source that feeds my family and will put my kids through Post secondary. I can promise there is enough Canadians pissed off at the Eco terrorist that are funded from foreign money.. Trust me, there will be radicals on both sides, I wouldn't want to be the ones opposing anyone who is trying to make a living and feed there family. Those people have something more to fight for.
 
Seanut said:
I've never understood how a rational person can make Nuclear power the bad guy and not the incompetent fools who cause the disasters.

Nuclear power is a large part of the answer to our "dirty" energy problems.
Click to expand...


Really?? How did that work out for Japan? You think an oil spill is hard to contain....
 
I Love Haida Gwaii said:
Really?? How did that work out for Japan? You think an oil spill is hard to contain....
Click to expand...

The problems with that plant were brought up time and time again years prior to the incident.

The tech is the best option we have for clean energy at this point, you just need to have people running/funding it without short term money concerns.

Nuclear power is sound, when implemented correctly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top