National Economy

[casper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

If Alberta wants it's pipeline to Vancouver and BC & Ottawa are cool with it, then fine, knock yourself out. That said, it shouldn't get a dime of Ottawa's money. If Alberta wants it, then let Alberta pay for it.

Infrastructure, physical or social, is an investment in the long-term development of the economy and social needs. This pipeline does NOT qualify. Infrastructure should be an investment for 120 years, not just 20. By the time they finish this damn project, oil demand will be on a very steady decline. Yes, we will need oil for a very long time despite what Suzuki & Company like to espouse. From plastics to clothing to agriculture........oil will be with us for a very long time. The issue is not that we will need it but how much.

One of the ironic outcomes of the Iran war is that oil-loving Trump has helped jump start the transition away from which had been lagging since COVID. Oil will still be needed in 20 years but demand will decline and hence so will, relatively speaking, the price. Oil sands oil is expensive to produce and with suppressed prices it will become unprofitable. Oil investment is one of diminishing returns.

Smith may not like this reality but it's reality none the less and even pipeline supporting Albertans know it.

I also agree the oil industry is a bit of a sunset industry. Demand will continue to decline. Due to Iran that will accelerate.

What the pipeline does is transitions Canada off the US being the major market for oil. The US is a net exporter of oil, there is no reason for them to be buying Canadian oil long-term in any significant quantity. The pipeline removes or lowers the discount the US is paying for the product that they do buy.

While I think BC is taking an environment hit with the risk associated with this pipeline and it needs to be compensated for that. This should be more about transitioning Canada's customer base not about expanding the market.

Over 100 year it will be paid off. It may not be a great business investment, but given the government is equally interested in encouraging economic activity its also not a loss.

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[Wpg_Guy]

• Video Link

[jc_yyc_ca]

Originally Posted by casper

I also agree the oil industry is a bit of a sunset industry. Demand will continue to decline. Due to Iran that will accelerate.

What the pipeline does is transitions Canada off the US being the major market for oil. The US is a net exporter of oil, there is no reason for them to be buying Canadian oil long-term in any significant quantity. The pipeline removes or lowers the discount the US is paying for the product that they do buy.

While I think BC is taking an environment hit with the risk associated with this pipeline and it needs to be compensated for that. This should be more about transitioning Canada's customer base not about expanding the market.

Over 100 year it will be paid off. It may not be a great business investment, but given the government is equally interested in encouraging economic activity its also not a loss.

Bingo. A new pipeline the coast isn't so much about expanding oil markets, but more for transitioning to other partners. No need to expand the oil sands itself.
It's a lot of money to invest, but at least we know there will be revenue from it. The oil sands can produce oil fairly cheaply ($21-$40 a barrel) if you're only looking at simple operational costs and leave out capital costs for upgrade, expansion, etc..

[Chocolite]

Originally Posted by jc_yyc_ca

Bingo. A new pipeline the coast isn't so much about expanding oil markets, but more for transitioning to other partners. No need to expand the oil sands itself.
It's a lot of money to invest, but at least we know there will be revenue from it. The oil sands can produce oil fairly cheaply ($21-$40 a barrel) if you're only looking at simple operational costs and leave out capital costs for upgrade, expansion, etc..

A pipeline somewhere other than the US needs to be considered. When 30% (~$120 billion) of your country's entire exports are oil going mainly to one country it's time for a plan B.
The federal government shouldn't foot the bill, but maybe they become a partner to insure it gets done. $120 billion a year is a ton of money. Right now the US is looking at bringing in crude from Venezuela. If they replaced us, it would be catastrophic for the economy.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Chocolite

A pipeline somewhere other than the US needs to be considered. When 30% (~$120 billion) of your country's entire exports are oil going mainly to one country it's time for a plan B.
The federal government shouldn't foot the bill, but maybe they become a partner to insure it gets done. $120 billion a year is a ton of money. Right now the US is looking at bringing in crude from Venezuela. If they replaced us, it would be catastrophic for the economy.

What a shame we let Trudeau and a handful of bands to shutdown Northern Gateway.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by whatnext

What a shame we let Trudeau and a handful of bands to shutdown Northern Gateway.

And made it impossible to build energy east… one of the main drivers of all 3 pipeline proposals was energy security, and alleviating reliance on the USA. Pretty much for this exact reason we are currently living. Now we are caught with our pants down, ass up, all because of the master virtue signallers. Pretty comical actually… If the US wanted they could completely shut down Enbridge line 5 and bring eastern Canada’s economy to its knees, which Energy East would have de-risked that scenario. what was Ricky’s saying, “i fuckin todaso“

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

And made it impossible to build energy east… one of the main drivers of all 3 pipeline proposals was energy security, and alleviating reliance on the USA. Pretty much for this exact reason we are currently living. Now we are caught with our pants down, ass up, all because of the master virtue signallers. Pretty comical actually… If the US wanted they could completely shut down Enbridge line 5 and bring eastern Canada’s economy to its knees, which Energy East would have de-risked that scenario. what was Ricky’s saying, “i fuckin todaso“

This is retconning. The main argument was selling to Europe. Energy security was a much smaller consideration. Almost a throwaway back then. And not just that. It was flat out a lie.

Energy East would have reduced the security of Natural Gas supply to Ontario and Quebec and increased prices. Ontario and Quebec would have had to import even more natural gas from and through the US. The Ontario Energy Board specifically called this out.

So please stop pretending that this was about doing the country a favour rather than making some shareholders wealthier.

[Airboy]

The Roberts Bank project along with the additional line to the coast would allow larger tankers to haul product. Currently Burnaby has tanker size restrictions because of the bridges. However there have been about 100 tankers in this year so far. so we are shipping more to other markets. Priced to go to the highest bidder so the US shipments may start to increase in price. I haven't checked the WCS prices yet. With the McMurray shut down about to start that will limit production by 300000 bpd.

There is a lot of oil products heading east via train, just have to go to east Edmonton and Bruderhiem to see that.

For any pipeline east they would have to build a new line through Quebec and NB. At least that is what ive seen on maps.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Airboy

The Roberts Bank project along with the additional line to the coast would allow larger tankers to haul product. Currently Burnaby has tanker size restrictions because of the bridges. However there have been about 100 tankers in this year so far. so we are shipping more to other markets. Priced to go to the highest bidder so the US shipments may start to increase in price. I haven't checked the WCS prices yet. With the McMurray shut down about to start that will limit production by 300000 bpd.

There is a lot of oil products heading east via train, just have to go to east Edmonton and Bruderhiem to see that.

For any pipeline east they would have to build a new line through Quebec and NB. At least that is what ive seen on maps.

The Lions Gate Bridge limits the size of tankers, but it's not the only constraint. There are depth and piloting limitations in the Second Narrows in Burrard Inlet that are limiting the loading of Aframax tankers loading from the end of the Transmountain pipelines to around 80%. Even with the current limitations, the pipelines are apparently now operating at 90% of current capacity. If the tankers could be fully loaded there would be fewer needed to take the available oil, and transportation costs for loads would be slightly lower.

Dredging has been approved and will start later this month that will allow tankers to increase the amount they're loaded, and there's a Navigation Risk Assessment also planned to allow safe operation of the Inlet.

You're correct that the Roberts Bank terminal, if it was built, could allow much bigger supertankers to operate, but transportation of bulk-liquid cargoes in the Roberts Bank area is not currently permitted. The restriction also applies to fuelling services in the area. A 1996 environmental review panel recommended against the uses, and a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts would normally have to be conducted and appropriate control measures developed, or the previous assessment will have to be ignored. It's not related to the federal ban on tankers in northern waters, but the responsibility of the Port Authority to do so under the Canada Marine Act.

The lengthy environmental assessment for the expanded container terminal, that has been approved, already determined it will cause significant adverse effects on the environment, threatening species like chinook, orcas and birds.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is retconning. The main argument was selling to Europe. Energy security was a much smaller consideration. Almost a throwaway back then. And not just that. It was flat out a lie.

Energy East would have reduced the security of Natural Gas supply to Ontario and Quebec and increased prices. Ontario and Quebec would have had to import even more natural gas from and through the US. The Ontario Energy Board specifically called this out.

So please stop pretending that this was about doing the country a favour rather than making some shareholders wealthier.

Ok… so you do agree then that energy east would reduce our reliance on the USA as customers. Providing security to our economy. Good.

A pipeline tethered off energy east would have been completed to supply Ontario refineries, multi-purpose the line for domestic use and export.

The artical stipulated moreso environmental concerns, and concerns of bar gas prices going up 11% over 20 years, not necessarily concerns of supply. Matter of fact the proposal of energy east was due to one of the trans Canada mainlines not shipping near capacity, which was a main driver of the project to convert it from nat gas to oil… that said, if there were concerns of nat gas supply, god forbid Quebec decided to develop their vast natural gas resources!

Not sure what you mean by the line not doing the country a favour? Export to global markets so we aren’t reliant on the USA is exactly what we need at this time? I’m not pegging it as a favour, rather a solution we had that are should have implemented, to reduce our reliance on the USA. In this context, Canadians in general are all shareholders in the pipeline, to reduce reliance on the clowns down south.

Anyway, on the most simple terms, we are looking to supply global markets to rid our reliance on the unstable partners to the south, and we had that exact solution proposed 10 years ago

[casper]

Energy east would have repurposed the existing natural gas pipeline for oil instead of gas. Energy East would have replaced one dependence on the US with another.

Lets not forget why that natural gas pipeline was built. The industry wanted to run that natural gas pipeline through the US. Not surprising given the involved of US oil/gas companies at the time. C.D. Howe (and the Liberal government of the day) was worried about the risk of being dependent on the Americans. The feds together with the Province of Ontario paid to build that natural gas pipeline it was then sold to industry once built. Left to the private sector it would not have existed and all the natural gas would have also routed through the US.

The normal of the story is the private sectors job is to optimize shareholder value. Government job is to optimize the benefit to the country. Usually they are in alignment but not always.

[Hackslack]

Silly to think Quebec could develop its vast natural gas resources?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Silly to think Quebec could develop its vast natural gas resources?

There are also off-shore natural gas reserves in Atlantic Canada. The problem is it costs more to extract than the gas is worth. Perhaps in time that will change.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by casper

There are also off-shore natural gas reserves in Atlantic Canada. The problem is it costs more to extract than the gas is worth. Perhaps in time that will change.

There was natural gas production in Nova Scotia up until 2018 or so, and there are huge reserves off the coast of NS. Most are off limits to exploration due to regulations. NL has more oil reserves while NS has more natural gas.

There was an LNG plant proposed in NS as well but the project was abandoned a few years back. There were offshore pipelines that have now been abandoned.

I don't think it's easy to decouple the level of development of the offshore industry in Atlantic Canada (mostly NS and NL) from regulatory and political factors, or limitations from past decisions around not building infrastructure. All of that tends to get collapsed down incorrectly to "well, if it had been commercially viable it would have happened".

For a long time the offshore didn't even result in royalties paid to Atlantic Canada and then there were major equalization clawbacks which limited how much the provinces cared to promote those industries.

[casper]

Interesting, I assume this was originally part of the CRJ regional jet business and went over to Mitsubishi when they purchased the CRJ program from Bombardier. I think Mitsubishi had aspirations for their own regional jet business. That never panned out. Wonder if we will see the rest of that legacy program come back to Bombardier. This plant is located at the Toronto Airport.

Bombardier to buy Mitsubishi aerospace plant near Pearson airport

The Montreal-based business jet maker says the purchase of MHI Canada Aerospace Inc. facilities in Mississauga, Ont., will see some 750 Mitsubishi employees join Bombardier’s roughly 18,000-person workforce.

The deal also means MHI’s 270,000 square-foot plant that handles wing assembly, fuselage and flight control installations for some Bombardier planes will now fall under that company’s umbrella.

The announcement comes a month after CEO Éric Martel said the manufacturer was starting to eye acquisitions in aircraft services and defence, as the appetite for its business jets continues to grow and a once-towering debt load comes back to earth.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/business/com...hi-aerospace-plant-near-pearson-airport/