No pipelines, no tankers, no problem 3

Why is Canadian Crude Selling For $20?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canadas-Crude-Selling-For...

"The oil industry in Alberta is losing around $100 million per day..."

So leave it in the ground.

NDPP wrote:

Why is Canadian Crude Selling For $20?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-Canadas-Crude-Selling-For...

"The oil industry in Alberta is losing around $100 million per day..."

So leave it in the ground.

I love how economists view the world. In most instances if you have have a restriction on the quantity of a good it raises the price. However in the case of Alberta oil it is the exact opposite. If they could only ship as much oil as they wanted to the price would increase substantially. Who the fuck can believe this propaganda?

..yes, there requires an understanding of power and greed.

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I love how economists view the world. In most instances if you have have a restriction on the quantity of a good it raises the price. However in the case of Alberta oil it is the exact opposite. If they could only ship as much oil as they wanted to the price would increase substantially. Who the fuck can believe this propaganda?

Its almost as if fully understanding resource economics might require more than the first lecture of one introductory economics class... 

Indeed which is why I like to read articles by people with credentials that are not in the pay of the oiligarchy. With the capacity to pump every barrel of tar sands gunk out of Alberta will not change what the filthy toxic crap is and how hard it is to refine. But feel free to buy their propaganda lines hook line and sinker.

When it comes to the differential between WCS—a diluted bitumen blend—and WTI there is a historical gap of about $20 per barrel because of quality. Bitumen is dirty oil and needs to be upgraded before it can be refined.  WTI is a light, high quality crude which costs less to process. In 2012 the differentials were well within their historical, and expected range.

CIBC’s analysis also relies on what they call a double discount—the difference between WTI and Brent. But WTI and Brent are benchmarks in different markets and hence transportation costs of getting western Canadian oil to new markets must be taken into account. CIBC’s numbers exclude those costs. When included, the differentials all but disappear.

https://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/commentary/economic-benefits-...

The Mad Hatter can understand the logic in these last posts, but no one else can. Making an argument while totally ignoring one side of it is nonsensical and the greater population is well aware of your biased entreaties.

The problem with one-sided hyperbole is that you lose the respect of everyone except your fellow travellers. For the extremists, the only answer to everything is 'NO' and the majority are tired of the lack of progress.

The pendulum is swinging back.

Martin N. wrote:

Making an argument while totally ignoring one side of it is nonsensical and the greater population is well aware of your biased entreaties.

Thank you for this self analysis. I think it could be cathartic for you.

The biggest concern with the project, from a climate change perspective, is upstream emissions from natural gas production. The agency cites tighter controls on upstream emissions in Northeast B.C. for producing gas that has a lower emissions profile than gas produced in the U.S.

A life-cycle analysis suggests that natural gas sourced from the U.S. could have emissions that are five to eight times higher than natural gas from B.C.

“The life-cycle analysis report indicates that GHG emission factors for natural gas production in the United States may be as much as five times higher than those for Canada,” the agency states. It adds that recent research has suggested it may even be as much as eight times higher.

One of the reasons cited for the lower emissions profile is the tighter regulations for drilling and natural gas processing in B.C.

“British Columbia has adopted comprehensive drilling and production regulations that are intended to reduce methane emissions,” the agency states. It adds that new federal regulations are forthcoming as well.

A new lng plant in WA to fuel marine and land transport.

https://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/new-lng-plant-in-washington-must-use-b-...

Spy Service Says Federal Pipeline Purchase Seen as 'Betrayal' By Many Opponents

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/canada-spy-pipeline-trans-mounta...

"Pipeline opposition seen as 'growing intelligence issue'..."

Board of Directors of Trans Mountain Corporation Announced

https://www.worldpipelines.com/business-news/09112018/board-of-directors...

"The Board of Directors of Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV) is pleased to announce the appointment of several prominent Canadians to the Board of Directors overseeing the governance and management of Trans Mountain Corporation (TMC)..."

In Blow to Pipeline Project, Court Invalidates Trump Administration’s Keystone XL Environmental Review, Blocks Construction

quote:

U.S. District Court Judge Brian Morris found that the Trump administration’s reliance on a stale environmental review from 2014 violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. This ruling follows the court’s previous decision, on August 15, 2018, to require additional analysis of the new route through Nebraska.

The court required the U.S. Department of State to revise the proposed project’s environmental impact statement to evaluate the extraordinary changes in oil markets that have occurred since the previous review was completed in 2014; to consider the combined climate impacts of approving both the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines; to study the many cultural resources along the pipeline’s route; and to examine the harmful risks of oil spills on nearby water and wildlife.

The State Department must also provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to reverse course and approve the permit, after the Obama administration denied it just three years ago on the same set of facts.

Based on these violations, the court ordered the State Department to revise its environmental analysis, and prohibited any work along the proposed route — which would cross Nebraska, South Dakota, and Montana — until that analysis is complete. Keystone XL would have carried up to 35 million gallons a day of Canadian tar sands — one of the world’s dirtiest energy sources — across critical water sources and wildlife habitat to Gulf Coast refineries.

Court rejects secrecy bid in court case over alleged spying on anti-pipeline activists

The federal government has lost in a bid to go behind closed doors in a prominent court case about allegations of spying on anti-pipeline activists.

In a ruling Wednesday, Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes sided with the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association in embracing the open-court principle and turning down the government’s confidentiality request.

If the decision stands, it means the public will have a fuller view of events when the court looks at the central issue in the case: whether Canada’s spy agency overstepped the law in monitoring environmental activists.

The decision could also set a precedent that determines whether future court challenges of Canadian Security Intelligence Service activities are held openly or in secret.

The case began four years ago when the civil liberties association complained to the CSIS watchdog after media reports suggested the spy service and other government agencies considered opposition to the petroleum industry a threat to national security....

MegB wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Just pointing out many of us would have been willing for that 4.5 billion to go to building a refinery in Alberta so you wouldn't need more pipelines and it wouldn't be discounted.

You might want to think that through again.

Because?

Because you still have to get the product to market. Pipelines.

Ideally it would be best to simply shut down the oil sands but that isn't going to happen. It will continue at least at current production levels and overflow will go by rail indefinitely.

While true it is a product that is less threatening than bitumen and lower volume (no need to add dilutants) means no need for new pipelines. It would bring more of the profits from oil into Alberta so that as the industry winds down the maximum amount of profit would accrue to Alberta rather than US refineries.

My main point is that Canadians against pipelines are not adverse to helping Alberta transition. The problem is that Alberta doesn't want to transition and has no intention of doing so.

They seem to think we are stupid.

“The ad says the pipeline will not increase oil production,” she wrote in her complaint. “But news articles show that pipeline availability is a factor in increasing oil production.”

She wasn’t wrong to be concerned about the accuracy of the statement, but it turns out the Canadian Code of Advertising Standards — including the important rules that ensure advertisements are accurate and not deceptive or misleading — don’t apply to advertising paid for by the government that is deemed to be about a “political issue.”

https://thenarwhal.ca/how-alberta-is-getting-away-with-running-deceptive...

I was puzzled by the same ad. I am appalled that the government is exempted.

https://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/little-hope-seen-f...

CALGARY — The Canadian oil and gas sector is in a holding pattern in which spending and production growth can’t occur until new ways to get products to export markets are found, according to CIBC analyst Jon Morrison.

So they are also lying when they say they will ship just as much by rail instead. If they could, they would be doing it now. The truth is they will ship excess by rail but they will not double or triple  production without a new pipeline. 

Poor weather prompts temporary shutdown of all N.L. offshore rigs

All Newfoundland and Labrador offshore facilities have been temporarily shut down as a safety precaution due to stormy seas and will not resume operations until the offshore industry regulator says it's safe to do so.

The Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Offshore Petroleum Board confirmed the province-wide shutdown Saturday, in the wake an offshore spill that was one of the largest in the history of the N.L. industry.

Husky Energy reported Friday, after the storm, that a flowline to the SeaRose FPSO, a vessel stationed about 350 kilometres off the Newfoundland coast, leaked 250,000 litres of crude. The board is working "around the clock" to ensure appropriate response to the spill, spokesperson Lesley Rideout said.

Due to ongoing high swells, the spill has not yet been contained. A Husky spokesperson could not confirm whether the line has stopped leaking.....

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

lol 4 sure. Ideally it would be best to just shut down the entire GTA area, but maybe we could just ensure that new developments aren't added without decades of environmental studies and GHG inventories and a fund should be created to ensure funds are available to restore that land to natural conditions once cities are abandoned. I'm sure they can just add those hundreds of trillions to a fund tomorrow...since that's what everyone seems to expects from those evil neanderthal Albertans. Or maybe we could just build some pipelines and stop losing this country $80-100 million every day because Ontario doesn't understand how oil works.

Oil has not been nationalized and you can't lose what you never had. What you mean is Alberta could make more money if there were more pipelines and that would generate taxes for Canada.

Your comparison between pipelines and cities doesn't work. Pipelines cross jurisdictions. Cities are trying to transition even in Alberta even though few cities are going far enough. Cities are not finite entities although some industry towns have been. People must live somewhere. It isn't optional. The oil sands are optional and we aren't talking about shutting them down. Alberta can continue producing and shipping at current rates with the pipelines that already exist.

There is very little Canadian objection to Keystone XL because it stays on Alberta's land, I think a bit of Saskatchewan which doesn't mind for the most part.

By far Canadian objections are to pipelines that threaten their land, my land in the case of Quebec. We aren't just being mean. We fear for what it will do to the land and water. Pipelines are finite and it seems the plan is to let them rot in place at end-of-life. Why would Quebec or any other province take responsibility for rotting pipelines?

Alberta is not entitled to force pipelines across the other provinces regardless of laws because we are a federation of provinces. That federation can only work consensually.

The Harper and Trudeau governments, pressured by the oil industry, failed to do its due diligence both in environmental studies and in consulting with indigenous peoples.

Even now when Trudeau speaks of the pipeline he speaks as though it is already approved and that nothing anyone says will change his mind. So why on earth would I trust him? No matter how great the risk he has decided to take it.

No pipelines, no tankers, Big Problems

That translates to about 250,000 litres, compared to the 165,000 litres that leaked from the Terra Nova platform in 2004. At the time, that spill was the largest for Canada's East Coast offshore industry.
Rough seas hindered workers from reaching the spill over the weekend, so the exact cause and scale of the leak have yet to be determined.
https://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/largest-newfoundland-oil-spill-yet-spea...

Where is the outrage?

Since its not Alberta's fault, no need to be concerned about this spill. Hypocrites.

Canada is Now A Land of Oil Trains

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/21/oil-by-rail-canada_a_23596117/

"This is happening even as Canadian crude sells at prices not seen in the oil markets since the 1990s..."

THE TIME IS NOW. We need your support.

Yesterday TransCanada tried to enter Unist'ot'en territory to begin work on their Coastal GasLink fracked gas pipeline. They were respectfully turned away by Johnny Morris of the Gidimt'en Clan. None of the Wet'suwet'en Clans consent to this project, and the hereditary chiefs have been clear that TransCanada does not have permission to build pipelines through our unceded and occupied homelands.

Unfortunately, TransCanada has decided that the best time to begin confrontations with the Unist'ot'en is while we are facing an ongoing family crisis. Freda's partner Smogelgem's mother is currently in home palliative care. In the past, oil and gas has escalated their efforts to push into our lands when we are enduring family crises. Enbridge and TransCanada's most aggressive efforts to enter our lands were made when Freda's brother and father had just passed away.

This encroachment on our territories is not only extremely disrespectful but brazenly illegal. We are the plaintiffs of the Delgamuukw-Gisdaywa Supreme Court Case, and we have proven that we have never given up title to our lands. We are the decision makers on our land. Wet'suwet'en law is our law.

Oil companies promised to pay for ocean protection, now taxpayers are footing the bill

When it set out to expand the Trans Mountain pipeline, Kinder Morgan knew it faced serious marine transport safety hurdles. In February 2013, Kinder Morgan Canada president, Ian Anderson told the National Energy Board that, “One of the greatest challenges I believe in providing British Columbians with the confidence and trust will be confidence and trust that the tanker traffic industry itself can be operated safely through that port.” (paragraph 1176)

He said this under oath at the NEB Toll Hearing where cross examination was allowed.

Oil producers confirmed it would be a "great cost challenge" to ensure the safe transport of toxic diluted bitumen through marine waterways. They also confirmed they were willing to pay that cost. 

Oil producers at that same hearing confirmed it would be a "great cost challenge" to ensure the safe transport of toxic diluted bitumen through marine waterways. They also confirmed they were willing to pay that cost.

Suncor said, “The other great cost challenge will be ensuring that the public, regulators, and governments are satisfied the tanker traffic through the Port of Vancouver and Canadian territorial waters and beyond can be undertaken as safely as practicable. This is entirely a shipper cost … Trans Mountain has agreed to essentially negotiate on behalf of shippers what these costs might be, but it takes no liability or responsibility for paying them. Regardless of what the costs are determined to be, the shippers have to pay them…” (emphasis added, paragraphs 7699 - 7701)

Similar acknowledgement is peppered throughout Toll Hearing transcripts. Trans Mountain, the shippers and the NEB all know this — they were in the room when the promises were made.

Yet, when Prime Minister Trudeau announced the Oceans Protection Plan — which he confirmed is needed because of the risk posed by the tanker traffic triggered by Trans Mountain’s expansion — he put this cost on the backs of taxpayers. Trudeau handed oil producers a huge subsidy the industry never expected to receive while unnecessarily burdening Canadian taxpayers in the process.

So what happened?

It looks like Kinder Morgan made good on its promise to shippers. Shortly after Trudeau was elected, Kinder Morgan was in Ottawa — month in and month out — “negotiating what these costs might be” on behalf of Alberta’s petroleum companies. Kinder Morgan reported 40 major meetings with senior officials and members of government between the time Trudeau took office and the announcement of the Oceans Protection Plan. According to the reports, matters discussed included the, “Promotion of the development of international oil tanker shipping, the economic development thereof and safety associated therewith.”

We all know what a successful negotiator Kinder Morgan is. It navigated Ottawa into using taxpayer money to overpay for a sixty-five year old pipeline and fork over more than a billion dollars for a permit to expand it. Since agreeing to buy Trans Mountain, a further $1 billion dollar loan has been made by the Export Development Corporation to fund the carrying costs of the Project while the NEB reconsiders whether a new certificate should be recommended. The certificate granted in December 2016 was quashed after the courts found the government had not fulfilled its duties to First Nations or the marine environment.

The cost to oil producers to pay for marine protection from increased tanker traffic? Nothing. The cost for Canadian taxpayers? One point five billion — and that’s just for the first five years of the Oceans Protection Plan. Considering the twenty years shippers have committed under long-term take or pay contracts, the oil sector subsidy is closer to $6 billion. How is that in the public interest? .....

..from a coast protector email

quote:

Last week -- with groups from all over the Salish Sea -- we sent more than 66,400 faxes calling on the National Energy Board to respect Indigenous Rights and Title and to take real action to save the endangered Southern Resident Killer Whales.

The public comment period of Trudeau’s rushed Trans Mountain “Reconsideration” closed last week after allowing only a few weeks for submissions.

When we learned the NEB would only accept comments by fax (or using an 8-page online portal and then mailing a hard copy!) we flooded the NEB with faxes protesting the limited opportunity for public engagement, using a special internet tool developed by friends of ours. 66,400 people (who don't have home fax machines) were able to send a fax to the NEB, along with Prime Minister Trudeau and key Cabinet ministers.

Secretary Treasurer of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) Chief Judy Wilson said, “I sent my fax with tens of thousands of other concerned people to make it clear that Canada cannot get away with a shoddy re-do of the already flawed NEB process. I am still shocked that the NEB attempted to completely ignore the impacts of the proposed Trans Mountain pipeline on our marine environment, and with the current whirlwind re-do, it’s like they are almost still ignoring the impacts.”

While we were faxing, the NEB decided they would limit the scope of their investigation into the effects on endangered whales to 12 nautical miles from shore, instead of the 200 nautical miles recommended by every intervenor except Trans Mountain, the Government of Canada and the province of Alberta. For more details on what’s been going on at the NEB, please read Eugene Kung of West Coast Environmental Law’s latest blog post.

“The Trudeau government’s slick, quick and dirty NEB process is a kick in the teeth to the Federal Court of Appeal ruling which quashed the federal approval for the Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker project,” says Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC).

“There is absolutely no chance that the impossibly short time frame and under-resourcing of the current NEB process will allow Canada to properly address the marine impacts of Trans Mountain. We continue to demand that this ill-conceived, dirty, garbage oil fuel expansion project be completely scrapped, and that Canada invest in real clean energy development projects.”

Later today, Canadian First Nations and U.S. Coast Salish Tribes will hold a press conference prior to the Indigenous Oral Testimony NEB session that is part of the “Reconsideration”, from 1:00 - 1:45 pm in Victoria, BC. We will share the livestream on the Coast Protectors Facebook page or you can watch here.

quotes from ://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/alberta-considers-cutting-oil-production-announc...

During Wednesday’s episode of CTV’s Power Play, Notley told host Don Martin that her government has been “leaning into and considering” cutting oil production “for well over a month now."...Kenney floated his own plan for addressing the oil price differential in a press conference Wednesday. He suggested the Alberta government cut oil production by 10 per cent – about 400,000 barrels per day....“I hope that the premier will listen to what the industry is saying and take our idea in good faith,” he said.

Sounds like a good idea and surely not a new one. Alberta's oil industry is mature. Alberta has a solution at hand. Why the delay? The oil companies even want it. It seems like a manufactured crisis to me. I think that by now Alberta should have learned how to manage its oil industry and the boom bust cycles. Alberta has deliberately allowed over-production lessening the value of its oil.

On Wednesday, Notley announced her government’s plan to buy its own rail cars in order to get Alberta oil to market. She made the announcement in Ottawa, where she did not meet with the prime minister and received no  federal commitment to help with the planned rail purchase.

If rail cars are profitable why isn't the private sector stepping up? Would the federal government share in the profits generated by the rail cars if we buy them? Are we talking about a new crown corporation? Why does Alberta want to share the profits with the federal government? You can be certain that the federal government will never have a share in Hydro Quebec. A solution is at hand. Why hasn't this already been done?

Despite the bubbling tensions between the federal government and Albertans, Notley said the feeling of alienation from Ottawa is nothing new. “I think Albertans have always felt that no matter what the government is and who the government is,” she said.“We’re just far enough away that our issues aren’t front and center.”

Really? Because I can't think of any other issue that has dominated the news more than Alberta's desire for pipelines. Just because Alberta isn't getting what they want doesn't mean nobody is paying attention. If we were certain our environment were not at risk and we wouldn't be left holding the bag the pipelines would have gone through long ago. We have legitimate reasons to worry. The insurance companies won't fully cover the risk for a reason. Because it could happen and it would destroy them if it did.

Alberta and the oil companies are like the boy who cried wolf. We don't believe promises of safety. We would have to be stupid to consider oil companies responsible. If they were responsible there wouldn't have to be a specific regulation against restarting operations in a heavy storm. I expect oil companies to have experts that control operations that big. It shocks me that they don't. Both the federal government, the NEB and oil companies knew that whales would be threatened by the increased shipping. Instead of dealing with the issue responsibly they tried to shove it under the carpet by determining it wasn't their jurisdiction to study. It took a court order to force them to do due diligence.

It's insane. You are blaming the wrong people for the log jam on Alberta oil. It is the gross negligence and ineptitude of government and industry that has led to the distrust that is allowing opponents of the oil sands to win. Without the strong opposition of those directly threatened by the path of pipelines climate change activists would be losing the battle.

If Trudeau had a magic wand that could force the pipeline through he would use it. Canada is governed by law not dictatorship. There is no executive order Trudeau can sign to bypass the courts. There is no temper tandrum or cries of unfairness that will overcome resistence because we genuinely believe ourselves to be physically and personally threatened with extreme harm if we allow the pipeline through or allow fracking.

There just isn't any convincing argument or statistic anyone can present that will convince us that a pipeline would be safe and whose fault is that? Yes existing supply chains also threaten us but there is nothing that can be done against those in the short term. Over the long term we are working on reducing demand not increasing it. Quebec refineries will eventually have to cut production and maybe even close. To survive as a planet that is the path we must follow.

Uh huh. Considering the hundreds of camps in the west, the news must be full of stories of sexual assaults, human trafficing and missing/murdered children and women due to these camps?

I am under the misapprehension that stereotyping a group by negative attributes is frowned upon in progressive circles? Especially when the smear is spammed from twitter and there is no corroborating evidence.

Take heart though, ndpp, the federal Minister of the Environment agrees with you, spouting the same silliness.

In fact, pipeliners usually are on live out allowances of ~$200/day and the resort to camps is only in isolated areas where there are no facilities to support several hundred men and women. Codes of conduct require polite behavior at all times.

So many mistakes with Trans Mountain pipeline redo. How long 'til we're back in court?

quote:

History repeating

Unfortunately, it appears as if the NEB is repeating the exact same errors that landed the government in court last time: rushing through a process with a narrow scope that ignores important topics and shuts out the public.

As we have stated before, the NEB (and Canada’s) approach continues to be informed by a mentality that seeks to do the least amount possible, and which reads court cases like the Tsleil-Waututh through a lens that interprets decisions with an eye to the legal minimum.

As a result, the NEB is now only addressing marine shipping in the reconsideration, and continuing to ignore unresolved issues related to climate, economics and salmon, among other things that were ignored in the Crown’s legally inadequate consultation with First Nations. This approach risks leaving Canada with stale evidence for the redo of the Indigenous consultation process, which is still to come.

So, informed by the ‘bare minimum’ approach, the NEB set out on its new marine shipping review. Almost immediately we are seeing the same patterns emerge.

Coast Salish Tribes United for Killer Whales

Press conference November 28, 2018, Victoria, BC

Since time immemorial, the Lummi people have lived in balance with the Salish Sea. We have worked to protect this place, our sovereignty, treaty rights, sacred ground, heritage economies and traditional lifeways. Recent victories include defeating a proposed coal port at Xwe’chi’eXen/Cherry Point; forcing a moratorium on Atlantic fish farms; and the Supreme Court culverts decision, which mandates that the state preserve habitat for traditional fisheries. Currently, our work is focused on salmon and resident qwe ‘lhol mechen (orca) populations. The Salish Sea is our sacred sea, and it is our obligation to help protect and revitalize it.

Speakers are: Lisa Wilson, Lummi Nation; Reuben George, Tsleil-Waututh Nation; Chairman Leonard Forsman, Suquamish Tribe; Chairwoman Marie Zackuse, Tulalip Tribes; Aurelia Washington, Swinomish Tribe; Steve Solomon, Lummi Nation; Ellie Kinley, Lummi Nation; Hereditary Chief Bill James, Lummi Nation. All spoke to the necessity to protect the peoples, cultures, salmon, blackfish, and sanctity of the Salish Sea at the press conference prior to the National Energy Board hearings on the TransMountain Pipeline.