Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[DiracSpike]

Interesting article in the financial post today about Irving Oil getting permission from the government to source Canadian oil...from the TM export terminal in Vancouver.

https://business.financialpost.com/c...#comments-area

Irving’s new solution to access the oil will purportedly see Western Canadian oil travel 6,300 nautical miles, or 11,771 kilometres, according to Sea-distances.org, more than twice the length of the abandoned 4,600-kilometre Energy East pipeline.
Irving Oil is also looking to source Canadian oil delivered through ports in Texas and Louisiana.
“Further, Canadian oil is also available from Canadian crude producers at Gulf Coast terminals in the United States,” Scott wrote in the application. “To maintain flexibility with crude suppliers, Irving Oil needs to have the option to acquire Canadian oil both in British Columbia and the Gulf Coast.”

In a clear win for the environment and global emissions, oil that could have been supplied to the East through a low emission direct pipeline is now traveling 1000km in the opposite direction to Vancouver before embarking on the 12,000km ocean journey to St. John. Just a brilliant move by the eco fanatics to make that happen. The good news is if Keystone is ever finished eastern Canada can source oil from the US gulf coast which would only be a 4200km unnecessary ocean trip. Simply brilliant

[Fuzz]

Thanks, Quebec.

[GGG]

Better than Saudi Oil at least.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GGG

Better than Saudi Oil at least.

Much like using a fully loaded revolver makes Russian Roulette more efficient.

In some ways its better, in others....not so much.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

Better than Saudi Oil at least.

Is it even worth talking about?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Interesting article in the financial post today about Irving Oil getting permission from the government to source Canadian oil...from the TM export terminal in Vancouver.

https://business.financialpost.com/c...#comments-area



In a clear win for the environment and global emissions, oil that could have been supplied to the East through a low emission direct pipeline is now traveling 1000km in the opposite direction to Vancouver before embarking on the 12,000km ocean journey to St. John. Just a brilliant move by the eco fanatics to make that happen. The good news is if Keystone is ever finished eastern Canada can source oil from the US gulf coast which would only be a 4200km unnecessary ocean trip. Simply brilliant

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Thanks, Quebec.

Thank Trudeau as well, with one stroke of a pen I believe any PM could make energy east happen and instantly Canada could not only serve it's own customers in eastern Canada but Europe as well, instead of incoming Saudi supertankers in Saint John's harbor it could be supertankers flying a Canadian flag bound for Europe.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Is it even worth talking about?

Sorry, defeatist sarcasm doesnt work in a highly political thread. I just find ironic that the key to not using Saudi oil eventually involved pipelining it through a foreign country and using tankers to bring it back.. As always it was economics that create change from using Saudi oil and not human rights.. It’s funny/tragic that this solution is the solution that comes out of the ethical oil problem.

[Geraldsh]

The key win here is Canadians using Canadian oil. Once you put it on a ship the distance you float it is almost irrelevant. And I am fine with huge tankers docking on both coasts.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

The key win here is Canadians using Canadian oil. Once you put it on a ship the distance you float it is almost irrelevant. And I am fine with huge tankers docking on both coasts.

But it's also then taking export capacity away. If we had, you know, a pipeline, we could then maintain both. But that's way to logical.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

Thank Trudeau as well, with one stroke of a pen I believe any PM could make energy east happen and instantly Canada could not only serve it's own customers in eastern Canada but Europe as well, instead of incoming Saudi supertankers in Saint John's harbor it could be supertankers flying a Canadian flag bound for Europe.

It's funny to contrast Canada to the USA in terms of energy security. You have the USA which has had energy security as a top foreign policy plank for basically 75 years, it's a big reason they have such a large navy patrolling the middle east and multiple land bases in Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It was basically the reason for the first gulf war and maybe the second. So much blood and treasure expended to protect the lifeblood of their economy and foreign supply, the concept of full energy independence a fever dream until very recently. Canada on the other hand is presented with a project that with one pipe achieves what decades of trillion dollar American military spends could only dream of, and instead of jumping on it shrugs their shoulders and fears what Quebec might think, and it dies.

Now we have some projects moving forward that will hopefully be complete soon that can send oil anywhere, even to the east, but it's not really the point. I'm ecstatic Keystone is going ahead, but that's a project that basically could have been going ahead in Canada. All Canadian labor bases paying taxes, all Canadian land being used collecting the property taxes, more control over the process since it's through one country, and all the benefits at the end point in New Brunswick to help them build out their port and become and exporting hub generating jobs for an impoverished area. Economically, strategically, environmentally, it was a clear win.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

The key win here is Canadians using Canadian oil. Once you put it on a ship the distance you float it is almost irrelevant. And I am fine with huge tankers docking on both coasts.

It still creates larger than required differentials. The maximum price Canadian oil can sell for relative to Saudi Oil is lowered by the shipping cost.

[cam_wmh]

Originally Posted by GGG

It still creates larger than required differentials. The maximum price Canadian oil can sell for relative to Saudi Oil is lowered by the shipping cost.

Wouldn’t that apply to the Arabic Oils also?

[SeeGeeWhy]

I don't know why we aren't building up Churchill, MB and other NW Passage shipping control and port assets. The ice is going away, we need to be asserting our dominion on what will be THE most important shipping route outside of the Panama Canal in the next 100+ years, if not MORE important than the PC.

Vancouver is a very limited port, period. It is situated in a terrible place geographically for moving goods to and fro the rest of Canada, and really how much MORE can it handle, of any type of goods? Western Canada in particular needs far better options for sea access whether it's to ship oil, grain, or whatever.

I'd fully support Kenney in making a move to participate on a Provincial level to making such infrastructure a reality.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

It's funny to contrast Canada to the USA in terms of energy security. You have the USA which has had energy security as a top foreign policy plank for basically 75 years, it's a big reason they have such a large navy patrolling the middle east and multiple land bases in Qatar, UAE, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. It was basically the reason for the first gulf war and maybe the second. So much blood and treasure expended to protect the lifeblood of their economy and foreign supply, the concept of full energy independence a fever dream until very recently. Canada on the other hand is presented with a project that with one pipe achieves what decades of trillion dollar American military spends could only dream of, and instead of jumping on it shrugs their shoulders and fears what Quebec might think, and it dies.

Now we have some projects moving forward that will hopefully be complete soon that can send oil anywhere, even to the east, but it's not really the point. I'm ecstatic Keystone is going ahead, but that's a project that basically could have been going ahead in Canada. All Canadian labor bases paying taxes, all Canadian land being used collecting the property taxes, more control over the process since it's through one country, and all the benefits at the end point in New Brunswick to help them build out their port and become and exporting hub generating jobs for an impoverished area. Economically, strategically, environmentally, it was a clear win.

I believe something that will come out of this pandemic is a willingness to reorganize our collective society away from a focus on maximum efficiency and more towards resilience and local security. Canada suffers from geographic fates that we sort of need to prioritize regionally, but I do suspect we will see "less than optimal" things being built in order to create a wider set of favourable outcomes for the long term as opposed to maximizing short term profitability. I also see publicizing things that are generally seen as more connected to security and basic needs like food and energy. Frankly, the risk takers need to be risk takers, capitalists has lost its ambition for too long. Let the pensions and governments be rent takers on staples.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by cam_wmh

Wouldn’t that apply to the Arabic Oils also?

Yes, but we pipeline + barge instead of just pipeline. So whatever the cost of the barging is directly comes off the value of WCS.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

Yes, but we pipeline + barge instead of just pipeline. So whatever the cost of the barging is directly comes off the value of WCS.

Plus tanker prices run up like crazy any time there is contango (like now). That lowers the price you can get at the worst time.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I don't know why we aren't building up Churchill, MB and other NW Passage shipping control and port assets. The ice is going away, we need to be asserting our dominion on what will be THE most important shipping route outside of the Panama Canal in the next 100+ years, if not MORE important than the PC.

Vancouver is a very limited port, period. It is situated in a terrible place geographically for moving goods to and fro the rest of Canada, and really how much MORE can it handle, of any type of goods? Western Canada in particular needs far better options for sea access whether it's to ship oil, grain, or whatever.

I'd fully support Kenney in making a move to participate on a Provincial level to making such infrastructure a reality.

How about shipping oil to Thunder Bay and through the Great Lakes, up through the St. Lawrence as another option? I'm no expert but aren't the lakes navigable?

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I don't know why we aren't building up Churchill, MB and other NW Passage shipping control and port assets. The ice is going away, we need to be asserting our dominion on what will be THE most important shipping route outside of the Panama Canal in the next 100+ years, if not MORE important than the PC.

I'm not a pipeline engineer, but I wonder if there are technical challenges to building to Churchill. The seasonal flooding and ground heaves make maintaining the rail link an ongoing issue, I would think there are similar concerns with running a pipeline.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by _Q_

How about shipping oil to Thunder Bay and through the Great Lakes, up through the St. Lawrence as another option? I'm no expert but aren't the lakes navigable?

You are not going to get a big enough ship through the locks, I wouldn't think. Plus you have to deal with the US. And people. So many people.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

I believe something that will come out of this pandemic is a willingness to reorganize our collective society away from a focus on maximum efficiency and more towards resilience and local security. Canada suffers from geographic fates that we sort of need to prioritize regionally, but I do suspect we will see "less than optimal" things being built in order to create a wider set of favourable outcomes for the long term as opposed to maximizing short term profitability. I also see publicizing things that are generally seen as more connected to security and basic needs like food and energy. Frankly, the risk takers need to be risk takers, capitalists has lost its ambition for too long. Let the pensions and governments be rent takers on staples.

I thought so too but I think ultimately a lot of people are just straight ignorant on supply lines. We had an embarrassingly large portion of the population that was supporting a handful of protestors crippling our rail network for weeks. I think the only thing that will snap people's focus to where it needs to be is an actual shortage of something. It's going to take an Abqaiq style attack in the middle east that actually shuts down production resulting in lineups, restrictions, and $4.00 gas for enough people in the east to come to Jesus and realize that maybe a reliable pipeline from your own country and not tankers from the most volatile region in the world is the way to go.