Remember: Only the Poor Can Reach the Kingdom of God

[Zhong Lu + 845]

A silver lining to anyone who is long on natural gas.  

Edited December 24, 2019 by Zhong Lu

[Meredith Poor + 883]

JUMP!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

What is holding up the purchase of more nat-gas in the USA is the stubborn (and silly) unwillingness of various States to allow the construction of gas pipelines across their territories.  So you end up with the bizarre, anomalous situation of the City of Boston unable to get sufficient gas supplies because New York will not let a new pipeline be built across its State to bring gas from Pennsylvania to the markets in and around Boston.

The result of this ridiculous situation is that Boston's gas supplier has to buy liquefied product shipped in from "Europe," which is really Russian gas.  So the LNG is drawn from Russia, shipped to England, there the paperwork gets massaged, and the ship sails from there all the way across the Atlantic to Boston, and the people there have to pay the inflated prices to get their heating fuel.  Instead of building a short length across NY from Pennsylvania, the NY portion being perhaps 50 miles of pipe. 

Meanwhile, up in Vermont, the anti-fuel activists have been able to persuade the Legislature to block the construction of any natural-gas pipelines of any sort to anywhere from anywhere, so even a short spur line to a factory or municipal installation is blocked.  Instead, those plants either have to take their gas deliveries by tanker truck, or go to wood fuel.  It is about as stupid as you can get. 

If those pipelines to the big metro areas ever got finished, and that is not a lot of work, the demand for gas inside the USA would increase quite a bit.  So, the trading positions are all a function of the time horizon.  

[remake it + 288]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

So, the trading positions are all a function of the time horizon.  

Capitalism at its very finest and you continue to rail against communist China which would never allow such inefficiencies and is putting in place an infrastructure that most Western nations can only dream about.

[Marcin + 519]

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What is holding up the purchase of more nat-gas in the USA is the stubborn (and silly) unwillingness of various States to allow the construction of gas pipelines across their territories.  So you end up with the bizarre, anomalous situation of the City of Boston unable to get sufficient gas supplies because New York will not let a new pipeline be built across its State to bring gas from Pennsylvania to the markets in and around Boston.

The result of this ridiculous situation is that Boston's gas supplier has to buy liquefied product shipped in from "Europe," which is really Russian gas.  So the LNG is drawn from Russia, shipped to England, there the paperwork gets massaged, and the ship sails from there all the way across the Atlantic to Boston, and the people there have to pay the inflated prices to get their heating fuel.  Instead of building a short length across NY from Pennsylvania, the NY portion being perhaps 50 miles of pipe. 

Meanwhile, up in Vermont, the anti-fuel activists have been able to persuade the Legislature to block the construction of any natural-gas pipelines of any sort to anywhere from anywhere, so even a short spur line to a factory or municipal installation is blocked.  Instead, those plants either have to take their gas deliveries by tanker truck, or go to wood fuel.  It is about as stupid as you can get. 

If those pipelines to the big metro areas ever got finished, and that is not a lot of work, the demand for gas inside the USA would increase quite a bit.  So, the trading positions are all a function of the time horizon.  

Eureka ! US became India. When this anarchy, lobby-cracy started ?

In Vermont you explained the cause: local lumber lobby. What is the source of New York ban ?

[Otis11 + 551]

14 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

What is holding up the purchase of more nat-gas in the USA is the stubborn (and silly) unwillingness of various States to allow the construction of gas pipelines across their territories.  So you end up with the bizarre, anomalous situation of the City of Boston unable to get sufficient gas supplies because New York will not let a new pipeline be built across its State to bring gas from Pennsylvania to the markets in and around Boston.

I've asked this a few times in persona and never gotten a satisfactory answer - how does this not violate the interstate commerce clause? Vermont can do this because it's all internal, but New York is preventing Boston from buying Natural Gas from Pennsylvania...

The only thing I can figure is that Constitution seriously muddled up the State permitting for the water crossings? (And by that I mean utterly refused to reasonably work with the state and answer their questions?)

Because my understanding is that the only legal objection retained by the state once approved by FERC is environmental permitting - most strongly the Clean Water Act. However - and I might be wrong here - but my understanding is that the state 'shall certify' a permit if the project does not violate state water quality standards or designated water (land) uses.

So it seems to be the burden is on the state to show that it does not meet the state requirements. (I'm also really tired... so could be off base)

But underlying question - is this either 1)an unconstitutional violation of interstate commerce, b) somehow NY has written their environmental and water use laws in such a way as to make them nearly impossible to navigate, or c) Constitution (pipeline company) really just mucked this up so royally they actually managed to get denied. (Or I guess d) I am completely missing something?)

TIA! And Merry Christmas!

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

7 hours ago, Otis11 said:

I've asked this a few times in persona and never gotten a satisfactory answer - how does this not violate the interstate commerce clause? Vermont can do this because it's all internal, but New York is preventing Boston from buying Natural Gas from Pennsylvania.

 Violation?  I see no violation.  Boston buys its gas from some out of State corporation  (presumably).  NY is not stopping that corporation from shipping it across NY soil - they can go hire a fleet of tanker trucks, or they can put it in railcars, or they can load it into barges or ships.  Nobody is stopping them at all. 

What NY will not allow some corporation to do is go dig a pipeline pathway and lay new pipe in it to transport that gas.  The gas would have to transit NY State Parks, including the Adirondacks, that are preserved for use in their natural state, in perpetuity.  So a pipeline company would have to select a route that does not impact any Parkland, and also meets the test of a "certificate of need" to get past the permitting process.  And that certificate is never going to get issued.

What set all this off was some fracking in the early stages that caused gas to get into the water supply somewhere.  NY City takes all its water from a series of lakes up in the Adirondacks, and that is brought to the City by a series of huge aqueducts, some 27 feet in diameter. None of that water is filtered or treated; it is pure lake water.  So they are terrified of the idea that any of that water source gets contaminated.  There is a zero building edict on all the lands around that very large district of lakes.  That is reserved, conserved land area.

Will some pipeline intended to transport gas to Boston meet a "certificate of need" for New Yorkers?  No chance.  So the Certificate does not get issued.  If Boston wants that gas, fine let them build LNG tankers and take it from the Port of Philadelphia, by sea to Boston, nobody is stopping them. 

In short:  there is no violation of interstate commerce, as the gas can be taken over the borders, just not by some new pipeline not yet built. And you are not getting a Permit to transit the State Parks, which are reserved natural areas.  Cheers. 

Edited December 25, 2019 by Jan van Eck
If" changed to "of"

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

^^^ Fascinating @Otis11 and @Jan van Eck.  Not something you learn in everyday conversation.  Thanks for sharing.

 

[Otis11 + 551]

Thank you @Jan van Eck - I appreciate the insight!

A follow up question to that - Could NY Tax the gas that flows through a pipeline in their state? Or would that violate the commerce clause as once the pipeline is established, they would be using established infrastructure? I would think if they could make sufficient money off of it (after all, there's a huge difference in cost between piped NG and imported Russian LNG) they would be more willing to let it go through. 

Either that or this is all just some huge political stunt - which wouldn't surprise me either.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, Otis11 said:

A follow up question to that - Could NY Tax the gas that flows through a pipeline in their state?

I don't know.   Probably not.  

 

8 hours ago, Otis11 said:

Either that or this is all just some huge political stunt

Of course it is.  This is what is known as "virtue signaling."  Or:  "Hey, look at me, I am as pure as the driven snow, I stand against fossil fuels!" 

 

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

Recognize, the same screw job New York is doing to Vermont happens north of the border in Canada. Will those pipelines ever be built under a liberal (leftist) government?

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Recognize, the same screw job New York is doing to Vermont happens north of the border in Canada. Will those pipelines ever be built under a liberal (leftist) government?

Probably not.  To do so would be to do something smart, and Canadians are not known for that, either as a race or as a nation.  Canadians have an ability to collectively do really stupid things. 

There is some discussion about building two pipelines from Alberta-Saskatchewan to ferry WCS out to the port(s) in British Columbia.  One line would be for nat gas and the other for heavy oil.  That may or may not get built.  But the one that would make a difference would be lines, for both nat-gas and oil, from Alberta out to Quebec and by extension to New Brunswick.  The problem again is the innate inability of Canadians to see beyond their own noses.  The Quebeckers have this antipathy for the Albertan oil people.  So the attitude of the (right-wing, nationalist)  "Coalition Avenir Quebec" or CAQ party  [in English, the Coalition for the Way forward for Quebec] is that there is this existing pipeline from the ice-free port of Portland, Maine, running up to Montreal, so the Valero refinery in Montreal can bring in crude from Saudi Arabia and hey who needs Alberta?    Quebec also (together with Ontario) brings in gasoline and diesel from the USA, both by pipe and by unit train rail. So they do not "need" to go buy Alberta oil, and since they have this loathing for Alberta, they don't.  

Now in the current Canadian system the governing minority Liberal Party needs the votes of "someone else" to stay in power.  They are not going to get that from their arch-enemies the Conservatives.  Maybe the leftist NDP.  But since Trudeau is from Montreal, and is French, and the son of Pierre Elliot, the great intellectual hero of Quebec, the logical choice to go pander to is the CAQ.  So, there goes your Eastern pipeline.

Due to geography, that means no pipeline into the Irving refinery in St. John, New Brunswick, so that place can buy either from the Bakken by rail via the Port of Albany, then tanker down the Hudson River and around into the Gulf and Maine and into their refinery, or they can buy from Saudi Arabia, depending on who wants the business enough to discount the oil.  And the small refineries in the Atlantic Provinces can get their ol by tanker from either the platforms in the Labrador Sea or whatever foreign source can sell to them.  So, there is no obvious market for WCS outside of China and the USA, and China is shutting down Canadian purchases for now due to the Huawei incident with MS. Meng, and the USA takes it by rail due to the ongoing issues with the Keystone. 

In short, I don't see oil moving by pipe expansions out of Alberta; I think the way forward will be by rail.  And that is not the end of things for WCS.  That oil can move economically by rail if - big "if" - the unit trains are specially set up to do that, and a new doubling of the main line through Northern Ontario is built.  And Canadians are collectively too brainless to figure that one out.  So, the oilsands oil will be on reduced production for the foreseeable future. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Will those pipelines ever be built under a liberal (leftist) government?

For the reasons outlined above, they will also not get built under a Conservative government.  You are facing total stagnation in the Canadian pipeline business  (exception being the possible twinning of the line into Burnaby, B.C., that just might get built.  But to the East - not much chance of that.)

The previous Alberta govt, now tossed out by the voters, saw the writing on the wall and ordered up a new fleet of 4,400 new rail tank cars to move that oil.  I do not know where that Order stands at the moment.  I think it was placed with National Steel Car, a builder in Hamilton, Ontario.  Does anybody know if that is an active purchase order, or was it cancelled?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

For the reasons outlined above, they will also not get built under a Conservative government.  You are facing total stagnation in the Canadian pipeline business  (exception being the possible twinning of the line into Burnaby, B.C., that just might get built.  But to the East - not much chance of that.)

The previous Alberta govt, now tossed out by the voters, saw the writing on the wall and ordered up a new fleet of 4,400 new rail tank cars to move that oil.  I do not know where that Order stands at the moment.  I think it was placed with National Steel Car, a builder in Hamilton, Ontario.  Does anybody know if that is an active purchase order, or was it cancelled?

The Magic Eight Ball says, Hazy, ask again

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 12/25/2019 at 8:24 PM, Jan van Eck said:

I don't know.   Probably not.  

 

Of course it is.  This is what is known as "virtue signaling."  Or:  "Hey, look at me, I am as pure as the driven snow, I stand against fossil fuels!" 

 

There is the ulterior motive underlying all of this. Strengthen Russia by opposing fracking, pipelines, all fossil fuels but promote all Russian fossil fuel. Also never mention China and the rest of Asia using more coal than ever. That would be mean. They need to grow in strength to totally overcome Western civilization and advance globalization managed by the United Nations AKA socialists and communists. 

Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

Edited December 29, 2019 by ronwagn

[Zhong Lu + 845]

I have returned... to UGAZ (74.4).  

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Really happy I sold @ 72.  

[Papillon + 485]

On 12/29/2019 at 6:14 AM, ronwagn said:

There is the ulterior motive underlying all of this. Strengthen Russia by opposing fracking, pipelines, all fossil fuels but promote all Russian fossil fuel. Also never mention China and the rest of Asia using more coal than ever. That would be mean. They need to grow in strength to totally overcome Western civilization and advance globalization managed by the United Nations AKA socialists and communists. 

Globalism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1k8kNhtZJLuN66TpDuo67WBV1U2JhhZIvAefxeMNK0ls/edit

Dear oh dear. It gets worse.

 @remake it - did you hear back about that trinket sir? 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Papillon