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 : Canadian Oil & Gas Companies -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: westslope who wrote (19141)5/6/2012 7:30:46 PM
From: johnlw  Respond to of 24928
 
Great post



To: westslope who wrote (19141)5/6/2012 11:06:14 PM
From: teevee2 Recommendations  Respond to of 24928
 
I don't think pipeline subsidies are necessary. Take refineries in Canada for example. THE only reason why there are refineries in Canada is because they were mandated by the Federal Gov't around the same time of the auto pact. Both these were done for job creation for Canadians and that is a good thing. If there are any subsidies, it is from the integrated oil companies that are forced to operate refineries in Canada rather than import refined product. Gasoline, diesel and jet fuel can all be imported into Canada for less money than they can be refined here. Why you ask? Simple-its the scale that the mega refineries in the US, Middle East and elsewhere enjoy.

With growing volumes of heavy oil, upgraded oil and new volumes of light oil coming from horizontal drilling, Canada needs pipelines to the west and east. In addition to refining Canadian oil in eastern Canada (which would do wonders for the balance of trade not having to import oil from the Middle East, Africa and Central America), oil could also be exported to Europe and Britain as well as Pacific Rim countries.

To drive the point home, IMO is bringing into one of its eastern refineries, a 20 car unit train load of oil from western Canada each day, and in spite of the additional cost, making money hand over fist because of the oil price differential. Yes, an oil pipeline to eastern Canada makes sense too.

I hope the Federal Gov't is proactive on this and that we seize Canada's future for another 5 decades or more, even if we have to drag a few greens and first nations folks along for the ride.



To: westslope who wrote (19141)5/7/2012 1:52:32 AM
From: axial3 Recommendations  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 24928
 
Slope, nobody minds if you are opposed to a pipeline heading east. It's expected that there will be opposition. But there's a whole lot of invention in your posts.

First, you dream up imaginary "public subsidies" to scare everyone. No such subsidies have been discussed, nor are any likely -- though public subsidies have assisted the oil industry from Fort McMurray to Hibernia, and still do.

You say: "The distance is great; the terrain is difficult, ergo construction will be costly, toll fees will high."

Either you don't know the facts, or you're intentionally misleading. Which is it?

Because the pipeline is already built.

As the Trans-Canada CEO stated: 'There are "integrity issues' that come from switching a natural gas pipe to an oil pipe, but it's something TransCanada has experience doing in building its base Keystone system, which currently delivers Alberta crude to refineries in Illinois and a big storage hub in Cushing, Okla.

"I think it's likely technically feasible that we can make something like that work.'



About refineries, you said "A number have closed down in eastern Canada over the past few years."

None on the east coast of Canada; in fact one has expanded.

You said: "Bitumen requires new refinery technology. Not in my backyard (NIMBY) politics drives up costs and make new greenfield refineries expensive if not impossible."

"Eastern Canadian refiners have asked TransCanada whether it's feasible to send Western Canadian crude their way so that they don't have to buy a raw product based on higher international prices."

Yeah, asking for crude is pretty NIMBY. Have you checked the newspapers in New Brunswick and Newfoundland? Funny, they're eager -- but you say they're not.

Politicians, refiners and ordinary people asking for crude. The exact opposite of BC.

---

"Alberta oil companies should look east to refine their petroleum, former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna says ... Additions to Irving's refinery plant could handle the crude from Alberta's oil sands, said McKenna, who is deputy chairman of the TD Bank Group and member of the board of directors of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. A new line could be built from Montreal to Saint John. One East Coast refinery, the Irving Refinery of Saint John, is the largest refinery in Canada and the largest refinery on the East Coast. It is capable of using heavy oil at the present time and with the addition of a coker could process raw bitumen into synthetic crude oil." he wrote in the Financial Post."

... Carolyn Van der Veen, director of public affairs for Irving Oil, said it could possibly be done."We've processed Canadian crude in the past and may do so in the future if logistics are viable,” she said.'

You said: "One option is to force western Canada producers to sell at below market prices to eastern buyers as was done under the National Energy Policy in the 1970s. Western Canada won't stand for it. Moreover, it might sound patriotic and generous (sic) and fair (sic) but it is bad economics."

That's what's called a Straw Man argument. Nobody even suggested such a thing. It's a figment of your imagination. Completely invented to lend false credibility, and extraneous to the discussion.

There isn't time to list more of the rhetorical tricks in your post, including your hand-over-heart paean to greenness and clean air. You want the pipeline to go west. Fine. No need for invention; just say so.

For others, who want a more factual presentation of the issue, please see:

How Oil Makes Canada Four (Or Five) Different Countries
blogs.canoe.ca

Regards,

Jim



To: westslope who wrote (19141)5/7/2012 11:35:09 AM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum1 Recommendation  Respond to of 24928
 
en.wikipedia.org



To: westslope who wrote (19141)10/8/2014 10:54:50 AM
From: axial1 Recommendation

Recommended By
VisionsOfSugarplums

  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 24928
 
How Alberta’s oil patch teamed up with the ‘little guys’ for an end run around Obama

' In this period of national gloom comes an idea — a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta’s isolation and America’s fickleness? Canada’s own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia. So, instead, go east — all the way to the Atlantic.

Thus was born Energy East, an improbable pipeline that its backers say has a high probability of being built. It will cost $12-billion and could be up and running by 2018. Its 4,600-kilometer path, taking advantage of a vast length of existing and underused natural gas pipeline, would wend through six provinces and four time zones. It would be Keystone on steroids, more than twice as long and carrying one-third more crude.'

business.financialpost.com

Jim