protests in Canada over pipeline

[Rodent + 1,424]

I debated whether to put the "over pipeline" in the title, it seeming entirely superfluous. but I decided to do it anyway. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transcanada-headquarters-wet-suwet-en-arrests-1.4970441?cmp=rss

"Dozens of opposing protesters gathered in front of TransCanada's Calgary headquarters on Tuesday.."

Dozens??  that many?? 

 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

No Maple Leaves were harmed during this protest.

[Illurion + 894]

1 hour ago, Rodent said:

I debated whether to put the "over pipeline" in the title, it seeming entirely superfluous. but I decided to do it anyway. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transcanada-headquarters-wet-suwet-en-arrests-1.4970441?cmp=rss

"Dozens of opposing protesters gathered in front of TransCanada's Calgary headquarters on Tuesday.."

Dozens??  that many?? 

 

I opened a thread the other day on a similar issue in ALBERTA Canada.

The Government had capitulated to environmentalists,  and ended several pipeline deals,  causing many Albertans to lose their jobs.

A video of "on the street Albertans" showed 57% were against the Government and Pro-Oil/Jobs,  16% undecided,  and only 27% percent supported the shutting down of the pipelines.

So the 27% minority won,  and the 57% pro-oil lost...

Not very fair.

[Marina Schwarz + 1,576]

4 hours ago, Rodent said:

I debated whether to put the "over pipeline" in the title, it seeming entirely superfluous. but I decided to do it anyway. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-transcanada-headquarters-wet-suwet-en-arrests-1.4970441?cmp=rss

"Dozens of opposing protesters gathered in front of TransCanada's Calgary headquarters on Tuesday.."

Dozens??  that many?? 

 

Honestly, this is the best piece of news I've heard so far this year. I never knew Canadians could be such fun!

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,246]

Their biggest issue is takeaway and shut the industry down to accommodate much lower production rates. 30 days ago Canadian oil was around 14.50 a bbl. Not sure what their thinking is by nixing pipelines. Lets just build more rail-cars lol..... The consensus was majority wanted the lines. Strange folks to the north!!!

[Kit Moore + 50]

It also surprises me, surely pipelines are Canada's best friend (if they can get them up and running).  Cheaper than rail, especially now they're crying safety on the railroads.

Pipe is cheaper, quicker and more reliable which is exactly what they need to get some of that oil out to market and reduce that discount.

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

This is an interesting issue here in Alberta.

There were 5 oil pipeline projects proposed and only three needed. The three needed ones are going ahead. The federal government even bought one of the three projects to ensure it went ahead. Kinder Morgan wanted out and was much more interested in the US.

There is only one big gas line that is the subject of these protests.

The federal government is damned if they do and damned if they don't situation however they are proceeding with the ones that are required - it is just tough sledding.

The Harper government had tried to ram these projects thru. The present government is trying a more balanced approach however that means that no one feels like they are the 'winner'

Glad I am not the PM. The obvious compromise solution is being carried out, the least environmentally/politically good projects have been dropped (so as to give the no side a win) and yet they are still making the headlines.

My guess is that 95% of Canadians realize these pipelines are necessary and want them built.

[SERWIN + 749]

16 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

No Maple Leaves were harmed during this protest.

What about beavers and Fords, were any of them harmed during the protest, eh?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

16 hours ago, Illurion said:

I opened a thread the other day on a similar issue in ALBERTA Canada.

The Government had capitulated to environmentalists,  and ended several pipeline deals,  causing many Albertans to lose their jobs.

A video of "on the street Albertans" showed 57% were against the Government and Pro-Oil/Jobs,  16% undecided,  and only 27% percent supported the shutting down of the pipelines.

So the 27% minority won,  and the 57% pro-oil lost...

Not very fair.

Just one more example of how the elites use small groups against the middle class. This is a worldwide phenomenon. They are losing politically because of it but will continue in hopes that they can bring in more immigrants thus overwhelming the middle class. 

See Conservatism Around the World https://docs.google.com/document/d/1twQ_yBtl-FPwhXf2mYA7qvGj1D8yts8El0m8nObWxuU/edit

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

"The Government had capitulated to environmentalists,  and ended several pipeline deals,  causing many Albertans to lose their jobs."

That is just the line spun by opposition parties. The US finding tonnes of oil and the world price is what caused the job loses.

Energy East died when Keystone was revived by Trump. Gateway was never going to happen due to environmental reasons and the better option of Trans mountain.

All is good as far as  projects and approvals-it is the timing and delays that have caused the issues.

Edited January 9, 2019 by Jeff_Calgary

[Illurion + 894]

36 minutes ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

"The Government had capitulated to environmentalists,  and ended several pipeline deals,  causing many Albertans to lose their jobs."

That is just the line spun by opposition parties. The US finding tonnes of oil and the world price is what caused the job loses.

Energy East died when Keystone was revived by Trump. Gateway was never going to happen due to environmental reasons and the better option of Trans mountain.

All is good as far as  projects and approvals-it is the timing and delays that have caused the issues.

Thanks for the info,  and your view.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

 

Energy East died when Keystone was revived by Trump. Gateway was never going to happen due to environmental reasons and the better option of Trans mountain.

All is good as far as  projects and approvals-it is the timing and delays that have caused the issues.

Jeff, as you are sitting in Calgary and (obviously) have a better attunement to the situation than the rest of us, I would defer to your conclusions.  That said, I would suggest that you overlook one other aspect.  That is a long-proposed crude oil pipeline direct from the Alberta oil fields to Montreal and New Brunswick. 

There is existing pipe, I believe owned by Enbridge: it runs from Alberta through Saskatchewan and down through Michigan, ultimately crossing at Sarnia and acting as feedstock for the Sarnia refineries, at least in part.  There there is yet another pipeline, I believe also owned by Enbridge, that runs from Sarnia into Toronto. My guess is that that pipe only handles refined products, and in turn only handles products from US refineries, not Sarnia.  (I remain unsure of all these details). 

Now that first line, running through Michigan, apparently has all manner of problems.  It is "old pipe," and needs to be replaced.  There is some discussion of encasing the pipe in a concrete jacket, a deal that would take years to complete. There is also hints of effectively twinning that line.  I am not optimistic that any of that will take place, due to trans-Border political considerations.  So there also was this Proposal to build yet another line, which you did not touch on, across the top of Ontario and then own past Rouyn-Noranda and into Montreal.  How realistic is this?  If it is for crude oil, then it passes through some of the harshest winter areas of Canada, with temps hitting -40. That is seriously cold.  So either the line goes underground, requiring blasting you way for over a thousand miles through the pre-Cambrian rock, or you insulate a suspended pipe and send diluted and heated crude through pump stations, with lots of re-heat. How realistic is that? 

One of those pipe routes was named "Energy East."  If built entirely over Canadian soil, it would be immune to US craziness, whether from the lunatic left or pressure from the Trump Administration, in retaliation for some perceived slight. This is not a trivial concern as it it entirely plausible that The Donald will be US President for another six years, and he is notoriously thin-skinned. (I would add that there are rumblings that the Democrats will again run Hillary, in which case the Trump re-election is assured.)   So the real issue is:  will Energy East be built, and if so, will Ottawa demand that Ontario and Quebec only operate on Canadian crudes?  And if all that happens, what will be the internal pricing for WCS?  

Something to think about.

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

Energy East and Keystone are both TransCanada projects. Once Keystone was restarted by Trump -Energy East was off the table. TranCanada does not have the volumes to carry out both projects. Also Energy East was partially based on a gas line converting to oil. The tariffs changed for that line in 2017 so it makes more sense for it to stay as gas.

Much of the posturing by the Federal government is simply to help get the other projects built. We have a new Bill C69 that everyone is up in arms about however it does not actually affect the projects that are presently happening. It is all a balancing act and unfortunately our opposition parties are not helping the government get these pipelines built since they focus on the pipelines that are not going ahead instead of the ones that are going ahead.

Enbridge Line 3 is under construction -so that helps. Trans mountain should go ahead but the courts need to be made happy.

We don't really need oil to Montreal -the idea was to get it all the way to the East coast Irving refinery so we can quit getting Saudi oil etc. This oil is now being displaced by oil coming in from the US Gulf Coast and we would much prefer to take oil from the US suppliers rather than the Saudis. That is of course on the days that Trump is not insulting us.

Edited January 11, 2019 by Jeff_Calgary

[Illurion + 894]

8 hours ago, Jeff_Calgary said:

That is of course on the days that Trump is not insulting us.

I enjoy reading your good info,  and please keep posting.

But,  as far as Trump is concerned,  to be fair,  the USA, and Trump have been getting a lot of insults from Canada over the last few years.

I believe much of it was coming from the politically correct groups,  and many Canadian actors and actresses.

And much in response to him trying to fix NAFTA inequalities.

I am hoping it will fade away as Trump makes more headway.

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

Very true-that trade surplus that the US had was not near high enough.

A bull makes a very good security guard-but not so much in a china shop.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

On 1/11/2019 at 12:02 PM, Jeff_Calgary said:

 

We don't really need oil to Montreal -the idea was to get it all the way to the East coast Irving refinery so we can quit getting Saudi oil etc. This oil is now being displaced by oil coming in from the US Gulf Coast and we would much prefer to take oil from the US suppliers rather than the Saudis. That is of course on the days that Trump is not insulting us.

At one time the Irving refinery  (for those of you not Canadian, it is located in St. John, New Brunswick, very near the border with Maine, USA) took its oil from the Bakken in North Dakota, by way of CP Rail to Montreal, then delivered via a small Class III railroad from Montreal across Maine and into St. John.  That rail line had a catastrophic run-away train that derailed and burned down have the town of Lac Megantic, Quebec, killing 47.  After that, the Bakken crude was delivered by way of CP Rail to Buffalo, NY  (the rail bridge is as Niagara Falls) then shipped by CSX to the Port of Albany, then trans-loaded onto 60,000-ton tankers in Albany for shipment down the Hudson and up the Bay of Maine and into the refinery.  

That big exercise was when Saudi crude was more expensive than Bakken + rail shipping. 

I think St. John has now gone back to Saudi crude, so the real question is:  will Calgary crude end up displacing Saudi crude in NB?  And if so, what will be the mechanism for doing that?  An import ban? 

PS:  don't worry about Trump insulting you.  He insults everybody - an equal-opportunity insulter.  Just roll with it. 

[Jeff_Calgary + 68]

2 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

At one time the Irving refinery  (for those of you not Canadian, it is located in St. John, New Brunswick, very near the border with Maine, USA) took its oil from the Bakken in North Dakota, by way of CP Rail to Montreal, then delivered via a small Class III railroad from Montreal across Maine and into St. John.  That rail line had a catastrophic run-away train that derailed and burned down have the town of Lac Megantic, Quebec, killing 47.  After that, the Bakken crude was delivered by way of CP Rail to Buffalo, NY  (the rail bridge is as Niagara Falls) then shipped by CSX to the Port of Albany, then trans-loaded onto 60,000-ton tankers in Albany for shipment down the Hudson and up the Bay of Maine and into the refinery.  

That big exercise was when Saudi crude was more expensive than Bakken + rail shipping. 

I think St. John has now gone back to Saudi crude, so the real question is:  will Calgary crude end up displacing Saudi crude in NB?  And if so, what will be the mechanism for doing that?  An import ban? 

PS:  don't worry about Trump insulting you.  He insults everybody - an equal-opportunity insulter.  Just roll with it. 

I think Irving can get the tankers from the Gulf of Mexico now. Some is coming that way -why not all? Saudi does not deserve our business.

As far as Trump - Reality TV has never been so good (Seth Meyers is best).