Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

They are doing it because that is where they can get it from. If the environmentalists wouldn't block pipelines, it would be cheaper to buy Canadian oil as it sells at a big discount.

I read somewhere today (and I have no idea how reliable it is) that most of the Eastern refineries aren't currently setup to refine oilsands oil and that refining Alberta oil is more expensive than say Saudi or Russian oil. Can someone confirm or deny this?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I believe the Irving refinery can. In many cases it's a matter of re-calibrating the refinery to deal with it. The MTL one can't refine dilbit. But EE isn't just transporting dilbit, it'll also carry light north bakken stuff that the MTL refinery can deal with.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay but is it not private industries that are importing oil from these countries because it's cheaper to do so? How is that on environmentalists and not just a function of capitalism? How exactly are you going to prevent this practice without implementing some pretty severe protectionist policies or nationalizing the energy industry?

As stated in fuzz's post. The refineries are importing it because they have to process something. If pupelines can't deliver it they'll get it from somewhere else. Oil sands crude sells for cheaper but correct me if i'm wrong.

[nik-]

significantly cheaper

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Simon96Taco

UAE Energy Minister says OPEC is willing to discuss a production cut:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/11/us-markets.html

Not sure if this is very meaningful yet, as "willing to discuss" and "discussing" are two different things. Also, I don't know who he is (or thinks he is) speaking on behalf of when he made these comments.

Nonetheless, the comments did spark a rally and oil pulled back much of today's losses on the news.

Originally Posted by stampsx2

And it still closed at $26. Starting to wonder if oil will be free soon.

Its up over 5% in Asian trading now though. All the way up to $27.57.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay but is it not private industries that are importing oil from these countries because it's cheaper to do so? How is that on environmentalists and not just a function of capitalism? How exactly are you going to prevent this practice without implementing some pretty severe protectionist policies or nationalizing the energy industry?

The thing is, TransCanada (a private company) believes that EE can be beneficial. You're right, in that if TransCanada is completely wrong, then they'll have spent 15 billion dollars on an empty tube in the ground and probably take a massive hit to their value.

The point is, why would you care? No taxpayer dollars are being spent to build this tube. If TransCanada is completely and utterly wrong, and no oil producers or refineries want to use their pipeline, it's 100% TransCanada's liability.

Maybe you are right, and Saudi oil is just so much cheaper and competitive than Albertan oil. Let TC make that mistake themselves and go bankrupt. TC sure as heck doesn't need some random person on the internet to judge the global (or even Canadian) oil market and then make a decision for them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The thing is, TransCanada (a private company) believes that EE can be beneficial. You're right, in that if TransCanada is completely wrong, then they'll have spent 15 billion dollars on an empty tube in the ground and probably take a massive hit to their value.

The point is, why would you care? No taxpayer dollars are being spent to build this tube. If TransCanada is completely and utterly wrong, and no oil producers or refineries want to use their pipeline, it's 100% TransCanada's liability.

Maybe you are right, and Saudi oil is just so much cheaper and competitive than Albertan oil. Let TC make that mistake themselves and go bankrupt. TC sure as heck doesn't need some random person on the internet to judge the global (or even Canadian) oil market and then make a decision for them.

Yeah, I'm only asking because I hear different things from different people, and I'd like to be as accurate as possible when forming an opinion.

The one thing I will point out however is that some of the folks who think we should be cutting off our reliance on Saudi oil out of principle are the same people who are saying we shouldn't worry about cutting our emissions because they represent a drop in the bucket overall, which I find to be a bit morally inconsistent.

[Flash Walken]

As an infrastructure project, it makes sense for pipeline projects to travel through as much of Canada as possible.

From an environmentalist perspective, the shortest path is less prone to spills than a longer span.

The shorter span is through more ecologically sensitive areas, the longer span more straight-forward construction and less environmental impact.

Energy East seems the easiest solution, perhaps even easier than Keystone XL, it will just need to be made attractive to the jurisdictions it will pass through. Foot stomping about the importance of the project to Alberta isn't going to get it done, so Alberta is going to have to find a new approach that makes it easy for the Trudeau government to grease the wheels for the project to move ahead.

That strategy should avoid huffing and puffing as a core concept.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Energy East seems the easiest solution, perhaps even easier than Keystone XL, it will just need to be made attractive to the jurisdictions it will pass through. Foot stomping about the importance of the project to Alberta isn't going to get it done, so Alberta is going to have to find a new approach that makes it easy for the Trudeau government to grease the wheels for the project to move ahead.

That strategy should avoid huffing and puffing as a core concept.

I think people are underselling how much Trudeau's new review process is him trying to grease the wheels. I get that people aren't impressed with longer delays but I think the preference would be a bit longer delays vs. no pipelines period. Whether the perception is accurate or not, the perception is that Harper was in bed with the oil companies and that the review process was a sham. Trudeau is trying to remove that perception in an attempt to lessen opposition down the line.

There's still going to be some opposition from environmental groups but this move is a preemptive strike in PR battle that's inevitably coming between said groups and the federal government. Getting into that battle without having this card in his back pocket would be an incredibly dumb move politically and, as noble as it may seem, it's pretty ridiculous to expect politicians to not act in a manner that's going to preserve their mandate.

[Tinordi]

From a getting pipelines built perspective it's hard to argue that there is a worse strategy than what Harper pursued and what many people in this thread are failing to learn the lesson from.

You can't cheerlead these projects if you're the government. If you stopped think to 30 seconds about the failure that defined Harper's handling of this file you'd reach that conclusion.

But yet people in here are livid that Trudeau isn't ramming these through. That's exactly what Harper tried to do and failed. It's almost as if blind partisanship trumps any logical deliberation.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, I'm only asking because I hear different things from different people, and I'd like to be as accurate as possible when forming an opinion.

The one thing I will point out however is that some of the folks who think we should be cutting off our reliance on Saudi oil out of principle are the same people who are saying we shouldn't worry about cutting our emissions because they represent a drop in the bucket overall, which I find to be a bit morally inconsistent.

I'm not sure you can morally equate Saudi's human rights with CO2 emissions.

Is 10% higher CO2 emissions worth lost Canadian jobs, income, + whatever it is Saudi does to it's people, not to mention it's role in Middle East turmoil? I'd strongly argue no, it isn't worth it at all.

[Ironhorse]

Does that chart include the GHG produced with shipping the oil halfway around the world in tankers?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Does that chart include the GHG produced with shipping the oil halfway around the world in tankers?

I suggest you read the chart.

[CampbellsTransgressions]

I suggest you stop being a dickhead. It didn't work for Harper, why would it work for you?

[peter12]

So, did rube just morally equate concerns over the veracity of anthropogenic climate change with the Saudi human rights record? Has he finally jumped the shark in regards to his unapologetic errant leftism?

[Robbob]

Isn't EE already in the ground and they want to repurpose the old gas pipeline? If the is the case, even if it is older, I would think a pipe speced for high pressure gas line would be thicker than one speced for oil, no?

Or is EE a plan to build an entirely new pipeline?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's both - basically, the pipeline between Saskatchewan and Cornwall, ON is existing natural gas pipe that will be converted. Then they build about 1500 km of new pipeline to St. John's. There are a couple of other instances in the west section where new pipe will need to be built as well, but the majority of it is conversion.

[Simon96Taco]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'm not sure you can morally equate Saudi's human rights with CO2 emissions.

Is 10% higher CO2 emissions worth lost Canadian jobs, income, + whatever it is Saudi does to it's people, not to mention it's role in Middle East turmoil? I'd strongly argue no, it isn't worth it at all.

Interesting chart, can you share the source? Thanks!

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

It's both - basically, the pipeline between Saskatchewan and Cornwall, ON is existing natural gas pipe that will be converted. Then they build about 1500 km of new pipeline to St. John's. There are a couple of other instances in the west section where new pipe will need to be built as well, but the majority of it is conversion.

One of the main reasons for Quebec's opposition. Less pipelines for gas means potentially more expensive heating rates.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Cappy

One of the main reasons for Quebec's opposition. Less pipelines for gas means potentially more expensive heating rates.

Except that the majority (about 2/3 or so) of homes in Quebec are heated with electricity rather than natural gas.