06-08-2017, 09:05 PM
|
#3681
|
damn onions
|
Oil prices need one of two things to see revival to sustainability >$50/bbl WTI.
1. OPEC extension to cuts beyond spring 2018, but is this really a sustainable model for the commodity? I don't think so... eventually OPEC member nations will try to flood the market and win back market share again, or the deal amongst the OPEC member nations will erode beyond that 90%-95% commitment level where nations are following what's been agreed. I can foresee a few member states cheating a bit more, basically as their public finances continue to be problematic.
2. Geopolitical event of some major magnitude disrupting supply. For example, Iran going to war against Saudi Arabia or blocking oil shipments in Straight of Harmuz, or something like that.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Mr.Coffee For This Useful Post:
|
|
06-19-2017, 11:00 PM
|
#3682
|
Crash and Bang Winger
|
Wow, it's the summer peak driving season and oil is under $45. Not good.
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 01:04 PM
|
#3683
|
Franchise Player
|
And. Here. We. Go.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-ndp-1.4241796
Quote:
B.C. has announced it has hired outside counsel to begin its legal challenge of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.
On Thursday, B.C. Environment Minister George Heyman and Attorney General David Eby said the province has hired lawyer Thomas Berger to provide advice to the government.
Berger is a former Supreme Court justice.
|
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 01:42 PM
|
#3684
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
|
__________________
The Beatings Shall Continue Until Morale Improves!
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
If you are flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a Fire Exit. - Mitch Hedberg
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 02:26 PM
|
#3685
|
First Line Centre
|
Hope they didn't plan on selling Site C electricity to Alberta......
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to puckedoff For This Useful Post:
|
|
08-10-2017, 02:34 PM
|
#3686
|
My face is a bum!
|
I thought being one big country instead of a bunch of little countries was supposed to give us an advantage in acting for the good of the whole, not special interests.
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 02:37 PM
|
#3687
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
I thought being one big country instead of a bunch of little countries was supposed to give us an advantage in acting for the good of the whole, not special interests.
|
Haha good one.
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 03:47 PM
|
#3688
|
On Hiatus
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Calgary Alberta Canada
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckedoff
Hope they didn't plan on selling Site C electricity to Alberta......
|
Stoping construction of site c was one of the campaign promises
|
|
|
08-10-2017, 04:34 PM
|
#3689
|
Franchise Player
|
B.C. plans on having an economy fuelled entirely by offshore real estate speculation. Hope that works out well for them.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
|
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-07-2017, 08:59 AM
|
#3690
|
Franchise Player
|
Any thoughts on this?
Quote:
Ian Gates was researching ways to upgrade bitumen when he and his team accidentally found a way to degrade it, making it even more viscous — which, in turn, led to a discovery that they could envelope the oil in self-sealing pellets, with a liquid core and super-viscous skin.
These tough little balls of bitumen could be a pipeline-free way of getting Alberta oil to markets cheaply, sustainably and with less risk of environmental harm, said a release from the University of Calgary's Schulich School of Engineering, where Gates is a professor.
"We've taken heavy oil, or bitumen, either one, and we've discovered a process to convert them rapidly and reproducibly into pellets," Gates told CBC News.
|
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/c...logy-1.4277320
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 09:12 AM
|
#3691
|
Franchise Player
|
I'd be curious how you could scale something like that into transporting thousands of barrels a day.
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 09:20 AM
|
#3692
|
Looooooooooooooch
|
Convert pipelines into giant cannons shooting bitumen pellets?
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 10:05 AM
|
#3693
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz
I'd be curious how you could scale something like that into transporting thousands of barrels a day.
|
Scaling it on the other end to reconvert it is what makes me more curious.
Rail safety wise though, it sounds great.
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 10:24 AM
|
#3694
|
Franchise Player
|
You guys are thinking about this wrong. These are for offensive deployment. We load them up in planes and fly them over Vancouver, dropping bitumen bomblets until they stop getting in the way of the pipelines.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-07-2017, 10:30 AM
|
#3695
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: A small painted room
|
I wonder what the costs are
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 12:02 PM
|
#3696
|
Franchise Player
|
This really doesn't change anything.
Rail is more expensive than pipeline to ship bitumen and rail capacity is limited. Yes it may make rail a lower spill option than pipeline (currently like 10 times the spill risk) but the economics don't change.
Also we shouldn't be using rail capacity to ship a liquid. That should be kept for shipping goods and grains that can't be piped. It makes no sense from a cost/energy use standpoint to ship by rail. Twinning rail lines to add capacity would be even more environmentally distructive than pipelines
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-07-2017, 12:06 PM
|
#3697
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
This really doesn't change anything.
Rail is more expensive than pipeline to ship bitumen and rail capacity is limited. Yes it may make rail a lower spill option than pipeline (currently like 10 times the spill risk) but the economics don't change.
Also we shouldn't be using rail capacity to ship a liquid. That should be kept for shipping goods and grains that can't be piped. It makes no sense from a cost/energy use standpoint to ship by rail. Twinning rail lines to add capacity would be even more environmentally distructive than pipelines
|
Sure I get what your saying and I agree, but since getting pipelines built is such a fricken fight and it takes years, twinning rail lines is an alternative.
Or can we just buy thousands of pickup trucks and shovel em in the back.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
09-07-2017, 12:09 PM
|
#3698
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Sure I get what your saying and I agree, but since getting pipelines built is such a fricken fight and it takes years, twinning rail lines is an alternative.
Or can we just buy thousands of pickup trucks and shovel em in the back.
|
As long as we bury a pipeline underneath the rail corridor I'm all for it.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-07-2017, 12:34 PM
|
#3699
|
#1 Goaltender
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: wearing raccoons for boots
|
^^ This.
Uh whats that? no no, its just a rail line, theres nothing else going on. that pipe? its uh..you know...for uh...drainage, yeah thats it, drainage. it makes 'rail transport' safer for oil products, thats all.
|
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to puffnstuff For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-07-2017, 04:21 PM
|
#3700
|
Had an idea!
|
Rail capacity is a real, actual issue right now. In other words there are backlogs for moving grain at this very moment.
Because of that this isn't a very good long-term solution.
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:37 AM.
|
|