SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Oil Sands and Related Stocks -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (11322)7/14/2006 5:58:29 PM
From: Metacomet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25575
 
"Connacher has also budgeted an additional 14 percent of the base cost estimate for the inclusion of certain new items, including capitalized costs, and the anticipated equity investment in a pipeline to available markets including the ability to eventually move a significant portion of Connacher's blended production to its Great Falls, Montana refinery, which was acquired earlier this year."

stockhouse.ca

William it is a disingenuous bashers game to think up hypothetical obstacles and attempt to plant doubts.

Obviously nearly every question you ask can be answered by reading the comprehensive press releases put out by Gusella and company.

CLL is so far ahead of the pretenders in the oil sands it is laughable.

Of course you are still in the "I don't trust that snake mode" and prefer sticking your money in pipe dreams like Strata, Habanero, DWOG, PTCH etc......



To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (11322)7/14/2006 6:21:25 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25575
 
Bill,

I'm guessing the same way Conoco will get their SAGD production as feedstock to their US refineries.

Al



To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (11322)7/15/2006 9:13:32 PM
From: haitokin  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25575
 
Dear William,

Go to post 11093 for answer number one.

Answer number 2: They are debating on whether or not to build a bobsled track all the way down to Montana, but they are having second thoughts because, even though it is south, apparently all the montana's means its not just downhill. One of their other options is to truck it to the eastern seaboard, then ship it through Panama and back up to texas, where I think they have things called pipes that can take it to Montana. But I don't know, it sounds like that would be north, and again, you've gotta wonder about trying to pipe things uphill into all those montanas. Maybe, they'll just truck it there. That's probably the best bet.

Maybe someone has posted on this one in the past?

H



To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (11322)7/15/2006 11:20:46 PM
From: johnlw  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 25575
 
Bill

Here are a couple of links which outline existing infrastructure to Montana from the oil sands. The pipelines going south have been in service for decades I am guessing, nothing new here. Initially Hardisty handled light crude but it has been handling the heavier stuff for years. A gas plant I worked at was selling condensate to the Hardisty facility for dilutant 20 years ago.
connacheroil.com
interpipelinefund.com

Follow the Bow River pipeline and I think it probably ends up at CLL's refinery.
The product may change carriers at the Hardisty terminal but I don't think that is unusual.

A local business columnist is bemoaning the processing of the Great Divide production down south.

Meanwhile, yesterday's cabinet orders included a rubber stamp for Connacher Oil and Gas's Great Divide project. It's now "full speed ahead" for the 10,000 barrels a day project that straddles Highway 16 south of Fort McMurray. Costs have also risen 15%.

But no worries there. The cash will flow when Connacher's "blended production" gets pipelined to the refinery the company recently purchased in Great Falls, Montana, where all the stable, high-paying refinery jobs will be located.


You are questioning it and he is bitching about it....probably adds up to a shrewd move by management.
investorshub.com

JW