Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Fuzz]

Not necessarily. If the "potential" includes massive dams flooding huge areas, and we have chosen not go that route, I don't see it as sad. It's just a number, and without looking into it, it's tough to say if it is sad or not.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well 900 installed when 12,000 is potentially available is bloody sad.

Not really, with no context on why it isn't available (over-damming, lining rivers with in situ generation) it's understandable. Plus with the group being called the Canadian Hydropower Association, you could easily imagine skewing data like that pushes their motive.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Not necessarily. If the "potential" includes massive dams flooding huge areas, and we have chosen not go that route, I don't see it as sad. It's just a number, and without looking into it, it's tough to say if it is sad or not.

Plus most of that potential is in the north of Alberta, so we'll need to build a significant amount of HVDC lines to get the electricity to the population centers.

[Azure]

Much of hydro in Manitoba is generated up north as well. Sort of eliminates the problem with flooding huge areas.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Much of hydro in Manitoba is generated up north as well. Sort of eliminates the problem with flooding huge areas.

Ish but not really. You get a few dozen ducks covered in oil and hippies flip their cracker. What would the backlash be for flooding a boreal forest bed and eliminating food sources for all the animals that live there?

[Azure]

Apparently there is none. From what I can tell, and I haven't lived here all my life, the bigger backlash seems to be the way Manitoba Hydro handles building the power lines.

Nobody really seems to care about the water being damned, or even Lake Winnipeg being polluted with crap. And if they do care, well blame those hog farmers!


Of course, the city of Winnipeg dumping raw sewage isn't a big problem either.


Crazy province I live in. And soon we'll be the only province in Canada with a conservative government. Go figure.

[Bunk]

John Ivison: Trudeau convinced that pipeline strategy must be top priority

John Ivison | April 11, 2016 6:52 PM ET


Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.

The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...e-top-priority

---

This is REALLY good to hear. Let's hope he's successful. That would be really huge for our province and our city.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Cool, thanks. Does the negative value for interchange indicate we are exporting, or importing?

Nevermind, RTFM and see negative is imports.

It's bizarre to see AB imports at this time of day. Must be a lot of coal offline.

[Fuzz]

^
That's what I was thinking too, but maybe they need to maintain some level of flow for the grid to be stable. No idea how it works, but we seam to have a ton of spare capacity, so their must be another reason.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^
That's what I was thinking too, but maybe they need to maintain some level of flow for the grid to be stable. No idea how it works, but we seam to have a ton of spare capacity, so their must be another reason.

Long story short we always run a high amount of backup capacity, and the larger that capacity is, the safer our system is overall.

For example if our grid was small, and a large generation facility was shut down or tripped out, we may notice a swing in voltages and frequency which could damage equipment. Plus with certain facilities it isn't feasible to shut theme down. Coal can take hours to start up.

[Fuzz]

But it looks like we have lots of spare capacity elsewhere, so why pay to import it?

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

But it looks like we have lots of spare capacity elsewhere, so why pay to import it?

Could be that they're getting that electricity cheaper than anywhere in AB is offering to produce it at. Plus it keeps us connected to BC, SK and Montana. Bigger grid =better.

Read the first reply in this thread, it gives a pretty simple explanation of load characteristics on generators and their effect on frequency and voltage:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/que...the-power-grid

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Bunk

John Ivison: Trudeau convinced that pipeline strategy must be top priority

John Ivison | April 11, 2016 6:52 PM ET


Justin Trudeau has told his senior lieutenants to draw up plans to make the Energy East pipeline and the Trans Mountain expansion in British Columbia a reality.

The prime minister has been convinced by his finance minister, Bill Morneau, and other influential voices around the cabinet table that the pipelines have to be built to achieve the ambitious economic growth targets his government has set...

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...e-top-priority

---

This is REALLY good to hear. Let's hope he's successful. That would be really huge for our province and our city.

If it turns out to be accurate, color me pleasantly surprised. This would be a great boon to the Canadian economy for decades.

[Regorium]

Both Notley and Trudeau have been impressing me on this file.

The consultations and delays just made me think "same old", but their conclusions and actions align with my viewpoints.

[nik-]

Harper talked a lot about needing a pipeline too. Lets see what gets done first.

Granted, at least this is in Confederation territory, so it has that going for it.

[peter12]

You guys pushing hydro need to read up on the Site C expansion in Northern BC. Now that is a real political sideshow worse than any pipeline protest (except insert something else for side).

[corporatejay]

Yes, hydro is clean and pure and has no consequences:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_...nmental_impact


"However, the dam flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.3 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.[20] The dam has been a controversial topic both domestically and abroad.[21]"

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by peter12

You guys pushing hydro need to read up on the Site C expansion in Northern BC. Now that is a real political sideshow worse than any pipeline protest (except insert something else for side).

Is the controversy mostly because it is near Dawson Creek and the high density of anti-development people who live in the area?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

Is the controversy mostly because it is near Dawson Creek and the high density of anti-development people who live in the area?

No, it is mainly due to aboriginal concerns.

[Fuzz]

Didn't they flood a bunch of good farmland too?