[whitev70r]

As you know, conflict between Alberta, BC and Feds. As much as I prefer it not to be built, looking at all angles, I'd say Horgan should stand down and let it proceed.

Apparently, some Indigenous groups wants it to go ahead.
Environmentalists red-wash fight against pipeline: First Nation chief | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/environmentalists-red-wash-their-fight-against-pipeline-first-nation-chief-says)

[TjAlmeida]

I believe there are lots of bands that want it to go through, people only hear the nay sayers and never the supporters.

[320icar]

You know we can make poll threads, right?

[twitchyzero]

only if we can slap fat tariffs to the tankers going to china, and BC keeps the pr0fit
a fair bit will probably end up being re-routed to north korea I bet

[DragonChi]

Yeah, I don't know why BC would assume the environmental risk for nothing. The BC spill protection program should not be from tax payer money. Shouldn't Kinder Morgan and the tanker companies be footing the bill for a spill?

Get money from the pipeline
Build offshore windfarms
Fund electric car network
Get off fossil fuel use... the dream. lol.

[underscore]

It's gonna move one way or another. Whether it's in a spiffy new pipeline with loads of engineering or in trains and trucks it's gonna get there, and a well built pipeline is the safest option.

[Spoon]

The Feds have my Yes vote for pipelines. As long as they make it worth my while.

Pay up, Justin Trudeau.

[Traum]

Yeah, I don't know why BC would assume the environmental risk for nothing. The BC spill protection program should not be from tax payer money. Shouldn't Kinder Morgan and the tanker companies be footing the bill for a spill?

Get money from the pipeline
Build offshore windfarms
Fund electric car network
Get off fossil fuel use... the dream. lol.
^^ This.

As a realist and pragmatist, I see our continual need (and the world's need) for years to come. I also see how rail, truck, and other forms of transport are almost certainly riskier and more prone to environmental disasters than a pipeline would. So in that sense, I think all parties involved, including the people in BC, would be better off from having the pipeline built.

But this does not mean we should just blindly agree to everything Kinder Morgan and that stupid Notley woman demands. From what I can see, the vast majority of the risks are borne by BC, and the bulk of the benefits are reaped by Alberta. So unless BC sees some major assurances to mitigate the risks, and some real economic benefits that would be worth our while to bear that risk, I say we cantinue to give a big FU to KM, AB, and Notley.

As an additional thing to bear in mind, it seems to me that a lot of people are severely underestimating the risk implications of a spill. Any kind of commercial level oil spill is probably a bad thing, but a spill involving diluted bitumen is extra special bad, and that is precisely what the new Trans Mountain pipeline is supposed to carry.

[Ding]

Wouldn't a spill from a pipeline cause way more damage because of the sheer volumes being carried by the pipeline? Whereas rail or trucks are carrying less. Also the likeliness of incident quoted by KM is 16-65% which seems pretty ridiculous and other assessments have quoted higher numbers.

[Traum]

As a layman on this issue, I agree that a spill from a pipeline will cause way more damage than other forms of transportation methods. At the same time, I think the failure rate of such a dramatic event is quite low. I'd expect them to seep / leak instead of outright bursting. Whereas with rail or truck shipments, the damage per payload is lower compared to a pipeline, but the frequency of accidents causing spills are far higher.

It's kind of like how the passenger death rate of airplane accidents are quite high, but the actual frequency of accidents are quite low, so the total number of deaths from airplane accidents are still fairly small. Whereas with vehicular accidents, the death rates from accidents are quite low, but because of the much higher frequency, you end up having higher death tolls from vehicular accidents compared to airplane accidents.

[Mr.Money]

All that fishing i see people Do on revscene is a drip in the bucket...the fishing industy would be fucked if there was a spill for years...


Good for investors the pipeline for the billionaires who can line they're pockets for even more cash,but if any us here who do fishing & such is pretty much screwed...
not only that But i'm pretty BC is getting a small tiny cut of the cash flow since this wasn't really our plan but Alberta's....Fuel prices would still stay the same as they are now...No Help for BC really but hand full of jobs..

[twitchyzero]

I agree, don't expect savings on fuel, if any, passed onto the consumers
Manic! might get another R8 though, jk you know I'm just jealous :troll:

[ScizzMoney]

I used to work for a company that responded to spill cleanups and we cleaned up a lot of spills from trains and very few from pipelines. One thing people rarely consider is that trains follow rivers for most of their journey. I'm off to work now but will probably write up more on my experiences with spills.

[Mr.Money]

yeah i heard them talking of moving oil from railway....yikes.... and i might've saw Scizzmoney working....Hehh
https://i.imgur.com/L4Ofp3e.jpg

[twitchyzero]

does your team cast a wide net and have it act like a filter and sponge?

when it happens out in the open water, i'd imagine it's a much bigger headache

[Great68]

As a layman on this issue, I agree that a spill from a pipeline will cause way more damage than other forms of transportation methods.

The Lac Megantic train disaster released more oil than any single pipeline spill in Canadian History.

The events also killed 72 people from fires & explosions and decimated an entire town. That magnitude of destruction doesn't really happen with dilbit & crude pipelines. They don't run directly through town centers like rail lines do.

It's not the pipelines but the oil tankers that we really need to worry about. However I think we can mitigate risks in that regard.

[donk.]

My favourite is the hippies with chains protesting the pipeline.

Guess how those chains are made you idiots.

ps. you will never see them on welfare paycheque day LOL.

[Teriyaki]

What is in it for BC to let it run through our land and putting our coastline at risk?

Our coastline is one of the provinces biggest assets, props to our government to actually stand up to this. There should be some fat royalties being paid to us for allowing Alberta to get their stuff through. A large part of these funds should be funneled into a emergency response and reserve for the incident that may happen in the future so we're "protected".

[whitev70r]

In terms of protection, there is a $1.5B Ocean Protection Plan from the feds linked to the approval of the TMP.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kindBC Gov't granted er-morgan-climate-change-1.4578732 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trans-mountain-kinder-morgan-climate-change-1.4578732)

I'm pretty sure there is some sort of royalties or % for the pipeline to go through BC.

Now AB is passing legislation Bill 12 which gives the Alberta government the ability to retaliate against B.C. over any delays to the expansion by driving up gas prices or restricting shipments of other energy products. This means even higher gas prices at the pumps, projected to be as high as $2/l.

David Eby, BC Attorney General is promising to sue AB in response.

Lawyers are thrilled that this is dragging on and on while our tax dollars are hard at work.

Horgan's ongoing deal with Green Party Weaver hinges on this. Greens are vehemently opposed to TMP and if NDP supports it, Greens will walk away from agreement and NDP gov't would most likely fall.

[originalhypa]

What is in it for BC to let it run through our land and putting our coastline at risk?

The world economy is based on oil. When the demand for oil is high, the price of oil goes up. In turn, our economy does well since we're a huge producer of oil for export. Oil is what makes the world go round, whether it's production, transport, or packaging, everything is based on oil.

Our tar sands oil costs on average about $45/barrel to produce. With world oil prices hovering around $65/barrel this leaves us with a net profit of about $20/barrel. Not bad considering that oil sands production has generally been increasing since 2006, peaking at 2.42 million barrels per day in 2016. 2,420,000 x $20 = $48,400,000 profit per day.

The problem is that we can't get this oil to the customers. The cost of shipping via train and truck cuts deeply into the bottom line. West Texas intermediate, which is your typical oil derived from shale and fracking cost about $25/barrel to produce. Combine the lower cost of shipping, because they have a huge network of pipelines makes them much more glamorous to the global market. The thing is, the US produces their own fuel and is busy trying to meet their own demands, let alone what the world needs.

This is where Canada comes in. Our oil sands are second only to Saudi Arabia in volume. A pipeline would be a huge boom for the Canadian energy sector because it allows us to get that oil to the global market. Right now the oil is landlocked.

Everything is based on oil. Once we understand that, it becomes obvious that a pipeline is needed. What I would like to see is major profit sharing to help take the burden off the consumer. I'm tired of paying $1.54/L

[twitchyzero]

helping Canadian energy sector might translate to a better support for federal programs

I doubt you'll see much effect on regional pump prices

[Traum]

The world economy is based on oil.

[snipped]
Originalhypa, you are not answering Teriyaki's question. All you're saying is, the pipeline will help Canada (and Alberta in particular) as a whole, but that doesn't translate into what BC can get out of it when the bulk of the pipeline pass through BC lands, and the increased port traffic (and thus higher spill risks) are happening right on BC shores.

If AB wants to use BC's resources to make the pipeline happen, that's fine -- just pay up for it properly and make sure BC gets a fair cut of the benefits. All their threats and posturing isn't gonna make anyone in BC more receptive to what AB wants to do.

[Tone Loc]

I think the media is heavily influencing the pipeline debate to make it look like everybody against the pipeline is some tree-hugging hippie, when this is simply not true. As a car guy, and a realist, I know we need oil. Everything is made with it. I am not one of these idiot snowflakes who are protesting oil dependency while wearing clothes, getting to the protest site, and filming with an iPhone or camera that would not have been made had it not been for petroleum-based products.

I am all for the idea of a pipeline, but I think since BC is dealing with all of the risks associated with a spill - especially with respect to our coastline, which as others have said above, is a huge part of BC's economy - we deserve a bigger slice of the pie. Because of that, I am against it "for now". Especially considering how childish Alberta politicians are acting, as if they are children who aren't getting their way. That's not going to make me - or other BC residents on the fence - feel any sympathy. As long as they make it worth BC's while, then I think it should happen.

[ScizzMoney]

A lot of people keep asking what's in it for BC.

I don't think many people actually know how a pipeline or tank farm actually work.

All along the pipeline there will be pump stations or booster houses, usually about 50-75 miles apart depending on the route that it needs to travel. These pump stations need to be staffed and can employ 10-20 people (depending on how remote the station is, some are outfitted with their own little mini-refinery to provide itself with fuel to keep the pumps going).

For the tank farm I assume they already have the new tanks they need built. These also will employ a number of people and they also generate money for the government (This info I don't know first hand, just from what I have been told from a manager at the refinery I work at). Companies can't just build storage tanks in a city and pump them full of oil free of charge. Both BC and likely Burnaby will be getting an influx of cash from having a tank farm there.

People seem think as soon as the pipeline is built all of a sudden the oil sands companies are going to flick a switch and start to produce more oil sand. Trust me when I say this, each mine up here in Fort McMurray is already producing as much as they possibly can. Whether the pipeline is built or not, this bitumen is coming out of the ground and getting to market. I personally would rather have it so more of our oil goes east instead of them importing oil from other countries. It's not like we import a bunch of maple syrup from the US when we can just get the goods from Quebec.

[DragonChi]

I was just on the Kinder Morgan site and I see 12 pump stations listed. So that's roughly 240 new sustainable jobs.

"The Project will add approximately 980 km of new pipeline and reactivate 193 km of existing pipeline. To support the expanded pipeline, new facilities will include 12 new pump stations, 19 new tanks added to existing storage terminals, and three new berths at the Westridge Marine Terminal."

https://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/projects.aspx
https://www.kindermorgan.com/business/canada/transmountain.aspx

I am for getting the products to a market that will pay more for it, but I'd also like it done in a way that doesn't expose our coast to irreparable damage.

[Traum]

Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights on the issue, ScizzMoney.

If employement opportunities is all the benefits BC will see as a result of the pipeline, I'd honestly be quite disappointed. The construction itself will obviously create employment opportunities, as will the on-going operations and maintenance. But those are pretty much just the costs for KM to operate the pipeline. To view them as payments for using the BC lands, and more importantly, as payments to offset the environmental risks seem inappropriate and highly inadequate.

IMO, I view the pipeline as the tool that KM needs to deliver their products to their desired market. And then I view the bitumen as the product that Alberta / KM are trying to sell. To make it worth BC's while, I'd really just look at the employment opportunities created in a light no different than another other company that wants to conduct business in the province. Meanwhile, the product itself is also creating huge profits, and that profit needs to be shared with BC in some form.

I'm sure as hell that KM pays AB a handsome coin just to dig that bitumen up. If they are going to run the product through BC properties (ie. land), it make sense for us to get a cut out of that too, probably based on the volume of the product that is going through the pipes.

[twitchyzero]

where can I read more about how they're gonna ensure they will be ready for an oilspill at sea?

I only know about double-hulled vessels, but let's be honest I question the standards that are asia-bound

[DragonChi]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/oceans-protection-plan.html

[underscore]

People seem think as soon as the pipeline is built all of a sudden the oil sands companies are going to flick a switch and start to produce more oil sand. Trust me when I say this, each mine up here in Fort McMurray is already producing as much as they possibly can. Whether the pipeline is built or not, this bitumen is coming out of the ground and getting to market.

I work with a slightly different type of oil acquisition from Alberta/Sask but the companies we work with are operating the same way, everybody is running everything at max capacity.

[whitev70r]

This is from TMP website under 'Benefits' (so you can take it with a grain of salt):

https://www.transmountain.com/benefits

Economic Benefits
The $7.4 billion* pipeline Project will increase the value of Canadian oil by unlocking access to world markets. A Conference Board of Canada report has determined the combined government revenue impact for construction and the first 20 years of expanded operations is $46.7 billion, including federal and provincial taxes that can be used for public services such as health care and education.

British Columbia receives $5.7 billion
Alberta receives $19.4 billion
The rest of Canada shares $21.6 billion
Municipal tax payments (not adjusted for inflation) total $922 million to BC and $124 million to Alberta over the first 20 years of expanded pipeline operations.

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/transmountain-craftcms/images/Economic-Benfits-Employment-Opp-Sheet-updated-March-15-2018.jpg?mtime=20180315201925

[DragonChi]

How does AB get 20 billion? is the result of my question out of that infographic. Could it be that Kinder Morgan is operating out of AB and it's the provincial taxes?


Those person-years metric, are the highest number they can get out of a calculation. lol. They seem so inflated.

[noclue]

Thank you for sharing your perspective and insights on the issue, ScizzMoney.

If employement opportunities is all the benefits BC will see as a result of the pipeline, I'd honestly be quite disappointed. The construction itself will obviously create employment opportunities, as will the on-going operations and maintenance. But those are pretty much just the costs for KM to operate the pipeline. To view them as payments for using the BC lands, and more importantly, as payments to offset the environmental risks seem inappropriate and highly inadequate.

IMO, I view the pipeline as the tool that KM needs to deliver their products to their desired market. And then I view the bitumen as the product that Alberta / KM are trying to sell. To make it worth BC's while, I'd really just look at the employment opportunities created in a light no different than another other company that wants to conduct business in the province. Meanwhile, the product itself is also creating huge profits, and that profit needs to be shared with BC in some form.

I'm sure as hell that KM pays AB a handsome coin just to dig that bitumen up. If they are going to run the product through BC properties (ie. land), it make sense for us to get a cut out of that too, probably based on the volume of the product that is going through the pipes.

You worded as if KM is an oil producer. They're just a pipeline company, they charge a toll. Blame Suncor/Canadian Oil Sands instead.

[blkgsr]

hopefully the BC NDP are just holding out to fight for a larger cut of the pie

[Mr.Money]

our cute little cut of the money pile,and no word of lowering fuel costs with it build and running..

What a Deal EleGiggle

[originalhypa]

Originalhypa, you are not answering Teriyaki's question. All you're saying is, the pipeline will help Canada (and Alberta in particular) as a whole, but that doesn't translate into what BC can get out of it when the bulk of the pipeline pass through BC lands, and the increased port traffic (and thus higher spill risks) are happening right on BC shores.

If AB wants to use BC's resources to make the pipeline happen, that's fine -- just pay up for it properly and make sure BC gets a fair cut of the benefits. All their threats and posturing isn't gonna make anyone in BC more receptive to what AB wants to do.

I'm with you on the threats and posturing. It's typical ignorant, alpha male Alberta bullshit. Let me start off by saying that I despise Alberta. Every time I see a fat girl in a Pontiac Sunfire with red plates I cringe a little. Same goes for the ultra lifted Dodge Ram driven by a guy who can deadlift 500lbs, but still reads at a grade 2 level..... but I digress.

The truth is that by allowing our Canadian oil (notice how I didn't say Alberta's oil) to the Asian market it strengthens our nation as a whole. Through tax revenue, job creation, investments, and simple trickle down economics, our economy is bolstered by the strength of our oil industry. Just like how our timber exports help the rest of Canada, except that oil is far more important than wood.

Truth is, we need this pipeline. Nationally, BC is being seen as a province that doesn't want to do business. On a global scale, Canada is being seen as the kind of place you don't want to invest in these days because of the rogue provinces. In financial circles, this spat is embarrassing at best.

You worded as if KM is an oil producer. They're just a pipeline company, they charge a toll. Blame Suncor/Canadian Oil Sands instead.

Why blame?
They're simply extracting a natural resource not much different than gold, lithium, or coal.

hopefully the BC NDP are just holding out to fight for a larger cut of the pie

I think that's the case. No one wants to be seen as the bad guy here, so Horgan blames the Greens, Alberta blames BC, and Trudeau smiles like a fucking idiot through it all.

[noclue]

. Every time I see a fat girl in a Pontiac Sunfire with red plates I cringe a little. Same goes for the ultra lifted Dodge Ram driven by a guy who can deadlift 500lbs, but still reads at a grade 2 level..... but I digress.


I lol'd this is spot on accurate especially in Kelowna.

I think the BC Green/NDP are waiting for the supreme courts to rule in favor of KM so they can say they tried their best without losing face.

[Traum]

I think the BC Green/NDP are waiting for the supreme courts to rule in favor of KM so they can say they tried their best without losing face.
Another entirely likely and viable option is to drag the incident out long enough such that KM deems there to be too much risk and/or uncertainty, and then they (KM) pull out themselves.

Isn't KM already suggesting they might pull out?

[Jmac]

KM pretty much wanted out the minute Keystone XL was approved.

[Spoon]

Another entirely likely and viable option is to drag the incident out long enough such that KM deems there to be too much risk and/or uncertainty, and then they (KM) pull out themselves.

Isn't KM already suggesting they might pull out?

I believe their deadline is May 31st. But who knows, could be just pressure tactics.

[Teriyaki]

A different buy very interesting viewpoint on the pipeline that resonates with some of the posts above.

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2018/04/17/Kinder-Morgan-Is-Playing-Canada/
Long story short, it very well could be that all Kinder Morgan doesn't see the return on investment it would like anyways, and the in-fighting between the governments is playing right into their hands because they want out. Now they'll have a way out, plus sue us for all we're worth, super salt in wound.

[twitchyzero]

popular or not, i tak e it that suing or shakedown will yield much less than the returns if built

[originalhypa]

KM and the sands producers don't like it when the price of oil is low.



https://i.imgur.com/REpK0gd.jpg

The Saudi oil mafia wants to see the price of a barrel go up to $100, and they have the power to do it.

Exclusive: OPEC's new price hawk Saudi Arabia seeks oil as high as $100 - sources

DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) - Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia would be happy to see crude rise to $80 or even $100 a barrel, three industry sources said, a sign Riyadh will seek no changes to an OPEC supply-cutting deal even though the agreement’s original target is within sight.

The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia and several other producers began to reduce supply in January 2017 in an attempt to erase a glut. They have extended the pact until December 2018 and meet in June to review policy.

OPEC is closing in on the original target of the pact - reducing industrialized nations’ oil inventories to their five-year average. There is no indication yet, however, that Saudi Arabia or its allies want to wind down the supply cut.

Over the past year, Saudi Arabia has emerged as OPEC’s leading supporter of measures to boost prices, a change from its more moderate stance in earlier years. Iran, once a keen OPEC price hawk, now wants lower prices than Saudi Arabia.

Industry sources have linked this shift in Saudi Arabia’s stance to its desire to support the valuation of state oil company Aramco ahead of the kingdom’s planned sale of a minority stake in an initial public offering.

The supply cut has helped boost oil prices this year to $73 a barrel, the highest since November 2014. Oil began a slide from above $100 - a price that Saudi Arabia endorsed in 2012 - in mid-2014, when growing supply from rival sources such as U.S. shale began to swamp the market.

But the kingdom wants the rally to go further. Two industry sources said a desired crude price of $80 or even $100 was circulated by senior Saudi officials in closed-door briefings in recent weeks.

“We have come full circle,” a separate high-level industry source said of the change in Saudi thinking. “I would not be surprised if Saudi Arabia wanted oil at $100 until this IPO is out of the way.”

Once the Aramco share sale is done, Riyadh would still want higher prices to help fund initiatives such as Vision 2030, an economic reform plan championed by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

“Saudi Arabia wants higher oil prices and yes, probably for the IPO, but it isn’t just that,” an OPEC source said.

“Look at the economic reforms and projects they want to do, and the war in Yemen. How are they going to pay for all that? They need higher prices.”

To be sure, OPEC and Saudi Arabia have no official price target and say the objective of the production cut is to balance supply and demand, and reduce the inventory glut.

But guidance on preferred price levels comes from officials speaking off the record, and from industry sources who have discussed the issue with Saudi officials.

“I personally think that now $70 is the floor for oil prices,” a second OPEC source said. “But OPEC is unlikely to make any changes in June, maybe by the end of the year. The market still needs support.”

TALKS IN JEDDAH
OPEC and its partners meet on June 22 to review policy and before then a ministerial monitoring panel gathers in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on April 20.

By OPEC’s parameters, the deal has worked. Oil stocks in developed economies in February stood a mere 43 million barrels above the latest five-year average, down from 340 million barrels above in January 2017.

The cuts have been even bigger than those specified in the deal, thanks in part to a slide in Venezuelan production due to an economic crisis in the South American country.

Compliance has reached 150 percent, according to OPEC, meaning the organization’s members have cut production by about 1.8 million barrels per day, 600,000 bpd more than pledged.

Few OPEC sources call for an exit strategy. Most officials are talking of introducing additional inventory metrics to assess the success of the deal, and of a need to support investment in new production to avert any supply crunch.

The impression is that oil prices are seen as not yet high enough to encourage sufficient oil investment.

“We will know what will be the good price when the market is balanced and we have enough investments,” the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, Suhail al-Mazroui, told Reuters last week. “We need to have more investments coming.”

The Jeddah meeting of the Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee is unlikely to change the parameters for assessing the deal’s success, Mazroui and other OPEC officials said, and sources see little chance of a major tweak in June.

“Even if we reach the five-year average before June, it does not mean we just go and open the taps,” a third OPEC source said. “We have to test it.”



This would make oil producers all over the world very happy.

[whitev70r]

Here's a poll on Vancouver Sun. At the time of posting

For the Pipeline - 63.5%
Against - 36.5%

Poll: Are you for or against Kinder Morgan?s Trans Mountain pipeline? | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/daily-poll-are-you-for-or-against-kinder-morgans-trans-mountain-pipeline-expansion)

[Traum]

A simple for/against poll like this is utterly meaningless and useless. The matter is a complex subject, and cannot be broken down into a simple yes/no question. What if someone is supportive of the pipeline, but only if certain terms and conditions are met? What if someone is ideologically against the pipeline, but begrudgingly supports it because he sees it as a lower risk alternative compared to other methods of transport?

And given that the majority of the pipeline runs through BC, and the risks are primarily borne by BC, BC should obviously have more say in the matter than the rest of Canada. But only half of those surveyed are from BC. When an oil pipe is running through my backyard, why should someone else who is living 5000 km away have an equal say on the matter than I would?

[Traum]

This is an insightful perspective that I think really drives home multiple strong points. Do you guys see any major counter-arguments against it?

Thomas Gunton: Trans Mountain pipeline is not needed | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/thomas-gunton-trans-mountain-pipeline-is-not-needed)
The prime minister’s announcement that he will subsidize the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion project has added a new and disconcerting dimension to the pipeline debate.

The question is: Why should taxpayer funds be used to support a U.S. pipeline company that is putting B.C.’s coast at risk when there are Canadian pipeline companies capable of transporting Alberta oil to market without risking B.C.’s coast and without requiring any subsidy?

To understand how we got to this seemingly illogical decision, we need to go back a few years when oil markets were booming and it looked like we needed a large number of new pipeline projects. Five new projects, including Trans Mountain, were proposed during that boom time.

But then things changed. The oil market has weakened as the world transitions away from fossil fuels, and Alberta oil production forecasts have declined by about 1.5 million barrels per day (2014-2017), thus reducing the demand for new pipelines.

The Energy East pipeline connecting Alberta to eastern Canada was cancelled because of declining demand, and Enbridge’s Northern Gateway was rejected by the federal government. That leaves three new approved pipelines still on the table: Enbridge’s Line 3, Keystone XL, and Trans Mountain. In addition, Enbridge is proposing 0.5 million bpd of expansions to its existing pipeline.

The new capacity from these proposed expansions — without Trans Mountain — is 1.7 million bpd. But with the declining oil market, Alberta only needs between 0.5 and 1.3 million bpd of new capacity by 2030 (and likely closer to the lower end). Bottom line: There is more than enough new pipeline space proposed without building Trans Mountain.

Trans Mountain’s alleged advantage is that it connects to Asian markets, thus reducing dependency on the U.S. But much of the oil destined for Trans Mountain will go to the U.S., and the other proposed Enbridge and TransCanada pipelines connect to world market prices at tidewater in the U.S. Gulf.

There may be short-term market constraints that cause temporary divergence in prices in specific markets, but, over the longer term, prices in all tidewater locations will be similar as oil moves from market to market to equalize price.

Therefore, all the pipeline expansions on the table will fetch world prices for Alberta oil.

But Trans Mountain has a big disadvantage: It has a much higher risk factor than the other projects because it cuts through the middle of Canada’s third-largest metropolis and requires tankers that will put B.C.’s coast at risk. The risk of a port spill is 77 per cent, and the median risk of a tanker spill is 56 per cent.

Trans Mountain will also increase gas prices in B.C. by more than doubling the toll on the existing pipeline than transports gas and oil to the B.C. market to help subsidize the new pipeline.

Enbridge Line 3 and Keystone XL have a much lower environmental risk because they connect to the world market price in the U.S. Gulf without using tankers.

Therefore, it is possible to meet Alberta’s need to get its oil to world markets and protect B.C.’s coast by using the alternative pipeline projects.

Add to this a concerted effort by Alberta to get more value for its oil by upgrading it into a refined product instead of shipping it out as raw bitumen and strengthening our climate change policies, and we have the elements of a compromise that comes close to meeting everyone’s interest than pushing through with Trans Mountain.

Why then is the prime minister doubling down to subsidize Trans Mountain when there are more palatable alternatives?

Justin Trudeau points to the need to protect Canada’s international reputation and the authority of the federal government to deliver on its decisions. Egos are no doubt also at stake.

While there is merit to the prime minister’s argument, it needs to be balanced against his own statements that the review process that led to the approval of Trans Mountain was deficient and his commitment to First Nations reconciliation.

And it has to be balanced against the harm to Canada’s reputation that will come from the massive protests and arrests and the reopening of the constitutional discord with Quebec and others that will ensue if he continues to push the building of Trans Mountain in the face of escalating opposition.

The federal government no doubt is facing a tough dilemma. But doubling down on Trans Mountain by using taxpayer funds to subsidize one company at the expense of its Canadian competitors and risking a major conflict that will do irreparable damage to Canada’s reputation is a risky course.

Maybe it’s time for the federal government to reconsider other options and let Kinder Morgan make good on its ultimatum to shelve Trans Mountain. Like most compromises, this will not make everyone happy, but it may come closer to meeting everyone’s objectives than the current option of subsidizing a controversial American owned pipeline.

Thomas Gunton is director of the Resource and Environmental Planning Program at Simon Fraser University and is a former deputy environment minister for B.C. who helped resolve the province’s “War in the Woods”.

[underscore]

the world transitions away from fossil fuels

I stopped reading here. People are wanting to transition, but it isn't happening on a large scale yet.

[Hondaracer]

The excavators to mine the lithium for your precious eco friendly batteries don’t run on flowers.

[twitchyzero]

VS demo is quite a bit older. You get a general public poll and I think it'll be pretty even

I stopped reading here. People are wanting to transition, but it isn't happening on a large scale yet.

not that different from the gun control thread :devil:

start somewhere, anywhere...or we still be at horse buggy or caveman chest thumping

we're lucky to live here where we don't have to rely solely on coal...why can't we have a dialogue harnessing more from our hydro?

[Traum]

Looks like the game is on?

BC suing Alberta after that province gave itself power to cut off oil supply - NEWS 1130 (http://www.news1130.com/2018/05/22/bc-ag-next-steps-alberta-oil-supply/)

Would be very interesting to see how this proceeds.

[twitchyzero]

deadline's next week
i doubt even KM wants this built at this point
if's going ahead, the AB gov't will need to buy the project to which it will face an even more vehement opposition

[jasonturbo]

I was on the project from July 2017 to May 2018, my entire team was let go a couple weeks ago.

Management keeps the cards very close to the chest @ KMC, normally I have a pretty good idea what direction management is going.. in this case it's anyones guess. My suspicion is that unless someone throws them a giant carrot ($$$$) the project will not move forward.

The project will not cost 7.6B, it's more like 11-12B, and strictly from a business perspective, there are other places KMC can spend 7.6B-12B and get a better return... and that's not providing any consideration to the financial impacts associated with regulatory uncertainty.

KMC had a very hard time securing funding for this project, that's why they IPO'd the KML stock to raise the final 1.75B in May of 2017. The birds tell me that KMC went back to market in January 2018 looking for additional investment from institutions and seeking a partnership with other major pipeline owner/operators, nobody had the appetite for it. Now how do you raise the needed capital to complete the project? Either you borrow it with very unattractive terms, or you dilute KML, if you dilute because you didn't initially asses the costs of the projects correctly you risk class action lawsuit from shareholders.. unless of course the additional costs could not have be foreseen... *cough* regulatory delays *cough*. BC has provided KMC with an excuse for their poor project management abilities.

With respect to Morneau stating that if KMC doesn't build the pipeline someone else will... yeah no, that won't happen, if KMC can't see the business case @ 7.6B-12B nobody else will. Never mind the cost of purchasing the project/engineering/materials and existing decommissioned portions of the original line (Approx. 140KM) from KMC, likely to the tune of 2B-4B.. for a total project cost of between 11B-16B for another party to step in.

Meh... curious to see how it all plays out. Canada waging war on their own economy, we've become less competitive globally and it's all by our own hand.

[Adorkami]

Read an article about this a few days ago but can't find it right now. Essentially it stated that the reason Trudeau went with the pipeline is because he needed to give Alberta something in order for them to charge carbon taxes but with Notley unlikely to get reelected and conservatives wanting to getting rid of it there is less of an incentive for the feds to keep pushing the project. I don't think this pipeline gets built, but I could see the Eagle Spirit Energy pipeline being built.

[jasonturbo]

Read an article about this a few days ago but can't find it right now. Essentially it stated that the reason Trudeau went with the pipeline is because he needed to give Alberta something in order for them to charge carbon taxes but with Notley unlikely to get reelected and conservatives wanting to getting rid of it there is less of an incentive for the feds to keep pushing the project. I don't think this pipeline gets built, but I could see the Eagle Spirit Energy pipeline being built.

The Eagle Spirit Energy Pipeline is a farce, a few white guys sat down with some aboriginals and drew a line over a map and titled it "Eagle Spirit Energy Pipeline". They are just hoping the angle of aboriginal ownership will somehow result in a gov. funded pipeline, it will never ever happen. They haven't initiated a feasibility study. they don't have any survey data, they have't started any applications etc... it's just a line on a map.

Trudeau approved L3R and TMEP while rejecting Northern Gateway, it had nothing to do with the carbon tax and everything to do with re-election.

Say no to the most controversial (Gateway) that also happened to have already been largely abandoned internally by Enbridge while giving the green light to a replacement project and another pipeline to get oil to tidewater - something nobody else was able to do.

[Urrtoast]

All this BS for 1 silly pipeline, Wtf there are so many pipelines why suddenly this BS. Bunch of stupid tree huggers

[vitaminG]

What a fucking joke. It's officially impossible to do business in Canada. Trudeau better get his shit together with nafta and sort this out or we are fucked for anyone wanting to invest here

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-trans-mountain-federal-court-appeals-1.4804495

[yray]

build underneath first nations

chinaman built railways, they can build shitty pipeline

[GabAlmighty]

They destroy the land more than any pipeline ever would.