Provincial Economies II

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by big T

We're not in competition (QC-ON), but you have to admit it's kind of ironic that Ontario might end up having to buy (more) electricity, likely from Quebec, because of this VW deal. SO from a Qc point of view, not getting the jobs and corp tax for the actual thing is really stupid. Total "can't do attitude" as Lio said.

It was more than just availability of power. Skilled manufacturing talent in Southern Ontario was part of it:

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6780811

I am curious though at what point, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic Canada will realize that combining offshore wind, hydro and nuclear would make Eastern Canada an absolute clean energy powerhouse.

[GreaterMontréal]

Hydro-Quebec has all the power it needs in the Saguenay region or in Sept-îles but they knew that it would be very hard to bring skilled workers there.

According to a study by Hélimax, if only areas located within 25 km of a Hydro-Quebec power line are considered, Quebec’s wind energy potential amounts to 100,000 MW. If proximity to power lines is not taken into consideration, the potential increases fourfold to 400,000 MW.

https://aqper.com/en/what-is-the-win...tial-in-quebec

[casper]

Originally Posted by zahav

BC definitely benefits from fossil fuels still, no doubt. But correct me if I'm wrong, but the big carbon emitter is thermal coal for power plants, and not metallurgical (for making steeL). Vancouver's exports are 2/3 steel making coal, which I don't think is as bad as thermal. But still... It is used to make steel, which is extremely important and it isn't like burning coal when you could use hydro, wind, solar, nuclear, etc. Coal for power is more easily replaceable, but steel is still so crucial and there's no viable alternative to metallurgical coal, yet. I know sounds like I'm justifying fossil fuels, it isn't that I'm some industry plug, but I do think supplying it for steel isn't quite as bad... As for natural gas, I remember when that was being touted as the energy conscious decision lol, now it's all about hydro heat pumps. There's still huge markets for it so not reason to sound alarm bells, but planning for the day when it's gone is crucial.

When people say "coal" they are talking about a very broad family of products.

We need steel and currently metallurgical coal is the best option. It burns hot and is "better quality" coals.

Lignite (a type of coal; sometimes called brown coal) used for power generation in pretty crappy. It has a low concentration of carbon, high moisture concentration. Very low heating value. You usually build the generation station as close as possible to the mine site to avoid transporting it to far given how low the heating value is. South-eastern Saskatchewan has reserves of that product and the plants right next to mine sites.

Natural gas is weird. Some is a waste product from oil exploration, but most is deliberately extracted. Better than coal but not as good as renewable.

I am a big fan on LNG exports in that is is going to countries that would have been burning coal. So its a step up in protecting the environment.

in BC where nearly all our electricity comes from Hydro electric or renewable moving off natural gas is a positive.

[WarrenC12]

The thermal coal being exported through BC is actually from the US.

Previous BC premiers have tried to stop it, but it's a federal agreement, or maybe just part of NAFTA/whatever the dumb trump name is.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The thermal coal being exported through BC is actually from the US.

Previous BC premiers have tried to stop it, but it's a federal agreement, or maybe just part of NAFTA/whatever the dumb trump name is.

Ya it’s from South Dakota or maybe Wyoming?

[casper]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Ya it’s from South Dakota or maybe Wyoming?

Yes, it treated as an in-transit product not subject to any tax. Same thing applies to product exported from Canada through the US to a third party. An arrangement we want to keep so we can have our products transit the US.

The BC government did try to block it. Same thing for trans-mountain. However in both cases the court held that the federal government has control.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Denscity

Ya it’s from South Dakota or maybe Wyoming?

South Dakota doesn't have any coal mines - they import from Wyoming. The coal that comes through the Port of Vancouver comes from Montana and Wyoming, and is partly exported to Japan. Montana and Wyoming sued the State of Washington when they thought they had a deal to export from a terminal there in 2020, but the state refused a permit. They lost in the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so BC is their only choice. (They tried California too, but that's also a no-go).

Japan has almost no coal, but relies on it to generate over a quarter of its electricity. Most imports are from Australia, and some was from Russia. It has relatively low renewable energy generation, (less than coal), with around 9% from solar, 8% from hydro, 4% from biomass and 1% from wind, and is only growing those slowly.

[Airboy]

Originally Posted by Changing City

South Dakota doesn't have any coal mines - they import from Wyoming. The coal that comes through the Port of Vancouver comes from Montana and Wyoming, and is partly exported to Japan. Montana and Wyoming sued the State of Washington when they thought they had a deal to export from a terminal there in 2020, but the state refused a permit. They lost in the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, so BC is their only choice. (They tried California too, but that's also a no-go).

Japan has almost no coal, but relies on it to generate over a quarter of its electricity. Most imports are from Australia, and some was from Russia. It has relatively low renewable energy generation, (less than coal), with around 9% from solar, 8% from hydro, 4% from biomass and 1% from wind, and is only growing those slowly.

There is still Thermal Coal being mined and shipped in Alberta, but most of that is being exported. since power production is being phased out. There is also a number of metallurgical coal mines still producing and shipping through Prince Rupert and Vancouver. In the north areas around Hinton and Grade cache. and in the south around Blairmore.

Of the marketable coal produced in 2021,

49.3 per cent was subbituminous,
50.2 per cent was thermal bituminous, and
0.5 per cent was metallurgical bituminous.
https://www2.aer.ca/t/Production/vie...coalproduction

[Truenorth00]

Canadian taxpayers may end up taking a loss of C$20 billion (nearly $15 billion) on the government-owned Trans Mountain Pipeline after costs to expand it skyrocketed, according to Morningstar Inc.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government will probably get no more than C$15 billion when it goes to sell Trans Mountain — and possibly much less, Morningstar analyst Stephen Ellis said in an interview.

The government paid Kinder Morgan Inc. C$4.5 billion for the system in 2018 after the midstream company threatened to cancel plans to nearly triple its capacity to 890,000 barrels a day. The cost of that project has soared to about C$31 billion because of a range of factors including supply-chain challenges.

“At a C$31 billion investment cost, no way the pipeline is going to recover costs,” Ellis said.

....


Trans Mountain is Canada’s only oil pipeline to tidewater, moving crude from Alberta to the British Columbia coast near Vancouver. The government bought it because it considers the expansion to be economically important, giving oil shippers the option to export their product to markets other than the US.

“When complete, the Trans Mountain expansion will ensure Canada receives fair market value for our resources as we work to achieve net-zero by 2050,” Adrienne Vaupshas, a spokesperson for Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, said by email.

But Trans Mountain has to compete with Enbridge Inc.’s much-larger system that carries Canadian crude into the US as far as the Gulf Coast. That will limit the tolls Trans Mountain can charge the 20% of oil shippers without contracts, keeping the returns for the pipeline “very low,” Ellis said.

....

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rningstar-says

Whoops.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...rningstar-says

Whoops.

Well Morningstar assessment does not line up with TD Securities and BMO Capital Markets assessment.

Either way, from strategic national interests perspective, the US has already demonstrated they can't be trusted as a host country for an oil pipeline that connects Canada to tidewater. Blocking a pre-approved, half-built pipeline made it clear that is not a secure long-term option.