Canadian oil

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ericmacm

Any future pipelines we see in the country will probably go east instead of west.

Going East is not cheap either. Substantially more distance to be covered. And that is aside from the political risk. All to serve a probably declining market in Europe.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Going East is not cheap either. Substantially more distance to be covered. And that is aside from the political risk. All to serve a probably declining market in Europe.

You’re definitely correct, not cheap. The original proposed line to go east would have directly cost at least $18 billion, and that is a line that is already built all the way to the Quebec border, it was going to be converted from a gas line to a oil line. Pump stations would have had to have been built along the route, though, and upgrades to certain portion of the line. New line would have been required to be built in Quebec though.

[Truenorth00]

It's just not worthwhile. Especially as European oil consumption has basically peaked and they are electrifying transport and building public transport fast enough that they will take down oil demand to probably half in 10-15 years. The only real growth market for Canadian oil is likely to be Asia.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Part of the question I guess would be how much oil will really be flowing through TMX in 50 years, nevermind 100.

Originally Posted by ericmacm

This is a good point too. It’s hard to predict what the oil market and oil prices will look like in 10 years, let alone 50-100. Nobody expected it to go negative in 2020, and nobody expected it to go as high as it is right now.

The best way to figure that out is to look at investments in refineries. Which ones are having extensive rebuilds? When was the last new one built? A refinery needs to see 25-30 years of production to be viable.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The best way to figure that out is to look at investments in refineries. Which ones are having extensive rebuilds? When was the last new one built? A refinery needs to see 25-30 years of production to be viable.

Not really for TMX, it's for export. World oil demand and supply in 50-100 years is impossible to predict, but likely to be low demand in the decades to come. Will Alberta be supplying much of it? Hard to say.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Not really for TMX, it's for export. World oil demand and supply in 50-100 years is impossible to predict, but likely to be low demand in the decades to come. Will Alberta be supplying much of it? Hard to say.

I know pipelines are for export. World wide, they are not building refineries that much these days.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know pipelines are for export. World wide, they are not building refineries that much these days.

But TMX will have a max capacity around 900,000bpd. It's all relative to the global market. Global demand for oil could be half of what it is today, and TMX could be running at full capacity if the conditions are right. Or, zero.

[Truenorth00]

When global oil demand falls, I don't see any way that heavier and sour crude doesn't get dropped from the mix first. It costs more to process.

Albertans know this. Hence, the whole "Ethical oil" gambit. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that governments or refinery buyers in Asia are likely to care much about Albertan oil being more ethically sourced than Saudi or Iranian oil.

Europe would have been a more receptive market if our prairie oil producers didn't fight emissions controls for so long.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When global oil demand falls, I don't see any way that heavier and sour crude doesn't get dropped from the mix first. It costs more to process.

Albertans know this. Hence, the whole "Ethical oil" gambit. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that governments or refinery buyers in Asia are likely to care much about Albertan oil being more ethically sourced than Saudi or Iranian oil.

Europe would have been a more receptive market if our prairie oil producers didn't fight emissions controls for so long.

I think the whole “ethical oil” gambit has more to do with sourcing oil from Canada, instead of places like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, for obvious reasons.

[blacktrojan3921]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I think the whole “ethical oil” gambit has more to do with sourcing oil from Canada, instead of places like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, for obvious reasons.

Part of the problem though is that the only people who would care about where the oil is being sourced from and if it's ethical are righ-wingers in Western governments who want to increase domestic oil production, and believe that using the ethical label would hurt these countries. The Western World (EU, US, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc) are pretty much a minority. The majority prefers to play neutral to get the best deal on oil for their home economy, or some of these countries are also close allies with the aforementioned bad places.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I think the whole “ethical oil” gambit has more to do with sourcing oil from Canada, instead of places like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, for obvious reasons.

Right. But as I point out, people and governments in the places where oil demand is growing aren't likely to care. Neither do Americans who got to experience a billboard in Times Square:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ergy-1.6192633

And while I'd personally support a Canadian ban on energy imports from those countries,. I recognize that it's a hard sell to tell already poorer Maritimers to pay more for gas to support Alberta's already booming oil industry. Or tell the folks working at General Dynamics in London, they should be unemployed for the sake of ethical oil.

I imagine that Albertans might not be too happy if Ontario started talking about ethical cars and insisting Albertans only buy cars made in Ontario. Or we can have ethical aerospace and insist that Air Canada and WestJet only buy airplanes made at Bombardier/Airbus Canada.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Right. But as I point out, people and governments in the places where oil demand is growing aren't likely to care. Neither do Americans who got to experience a billboard in Times Square:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...ergy-1.6192633

And while I'd personally support a Canadian ban on energy imports from those countries,. I recognize that it's a hard sell to tell already poorer Maritimers to pay more for gas to support Alberta's already booming oil industry. Or tell the folks working at General Dynamics in London, they should be unemployed for the sake of ethical oil.

I imagine that Albertans might not be too happy if Ontario started talking about ethical cars and insisting Albertans only buy cars made in Ontario. Or we can have ethical aerospace and insist that Air Canada and WestJet only buy airplanes made at Bombardier/Airbus Canada.

It’s not so much “insisting”, it’s moreso education and informating, especially those who are unaware.

Those are not good comparables. If it was Air Russia, vs Air Canada, then there’d be a case. Or buying planes/funding Russia makers instead of Canadian. And not to worry, Albertans would u doubtedly support “Canadian” over “Saudi Arabian” or “Iran”, or Russia.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

But TMX will have a max capacity around 900,000bpd. It's all relative to the global market. Global demand for oil could be half of what it is today, and TMX could be running at full capacity if the conditions are right. Or, zero.

The issue is for how long will it run at max capacity? The reality is as we move from oil as a energy source, oil sands will be worth more in the ground than not.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I think the whole “ethical oil” gambit has more to do with sourcing oil from Canada, instead of places like Russia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, for obvious reasons.

Where do you think Canada gets its oil from? You might be surprised how much does not come from Canada.

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

Part of the problem though is that the only people who would care about where the oil is being sourced from and if it's ethical are righ-wingers in Western governments who want to increase domestic oil production, and believe that using the ethical label would hurt these countries. The Western World (EU, US, Australia, NZ, Canada, etc) are pretty much a minority. The majority prefers to play neutral to get the best deal on oil for their home economy, or some of these countries are also close allies with the aforementioned bad places.

Canada could supply the country no issue. The reality is, Canada does not want to pay that high of a price at the pumps.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

It’s not so much “insisting”, it’s moreso education and informating, especially those who are unaware.

Those are not good comparables. If it was Air Russia, vs Air Canada, then there’d be a case. Or buying planes/funding Russia makers instead of Canadian. And not to worry, Albertans would u doubtedly support “Canadian” over “Saudi Arabian” or “Iran”, or Russia.

Indeed there is no direct comparable. But I imagine telling Canadians that they will be restricted to buying clothing or electronics manufactured and assembled in Developed countries would go down the same way. We determined a long time ago that we were willing to cast aside ethical concerns for the export jobs and low inflation that comes with imports. I'm going to guess most people have no issues with clothes being made in sweat shops in Southeast Asia or Bangladesh or their electronics being made in some Foxconn sweatshop in China. What makes oil special in this regard?

It's also particularly egregious to demand that Canadians stick to using Canadian oil when the petrodollar that comes with being an oil exporter wipes out jobs in the very regions which would have to pay higher fuel prices under such a prohibition. What exactly is the benefit to the average Maritimer or Quebecer in such a lopsided arrangement?

[Hackslack]

I don’t know man, it’s a simple campaign of bringing awareness to the fact that oil is being bought and imported from the various dictatorships like the Saudi’s who have been known to fund terrorism, or Russia, or Venezuela with lacklustre human rights. Similar campaigns are made for “buy America”, or even say for example Quebec dairy, though for reasons other than human rights…. Surely if Canada imported dairy from the Saudi’s, Quebec would throw their hands up…. no?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I don’t know man, it’s a simple campaign of bringing awareness to the fact that oil is being bought and imported from the various dictatorships like the Saudi’s who have been known to fund terrorism, or Russia, or Venezuela with lacklustre human rights. Similar campaigns are made for “buy America”, or even say for example Quebec dairy, though for reasons other than human rights…. Surely if Canada imported dairy from the Saudi’s, Quebec would throw their hands up…. no?

Ontario cannot buy Quebec milk.... and NS cannot buy Quebec milk......
Imagine if our oil laws were as bad as our milk laws?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

I don’t know man, it’s a simple campaign of bringing awareness to the fact that oil is being bought and imported from the various dictatorships like the Saudi’s who have been known to fund terrorism, or Russia, or Venezuela with lacklustre human rights.

It wasn't just a campaign to bring awareness. You know better than that. It was a response to global ESG pushes starting to label Canadian Oil Sands as a major global emitter. It was an effort at whataboutism to create some kind of equivalency between a poor environmental record on this side with a poor human rights record in those other countries. It also became a club to beat Quebec on their heads for refusing Energy East (announced mere months after the Lac Mégantic disaster). The idea was to shame Quebec into accepting the pipeline by pointing out their (in reality that of private refiners based there) imports of "unethical oil". Funny thing, nowhere in there did we ever hear any proposals to give communities and provinces along the way compensation or insurance against risks to reassure them.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Similar campaigns are made for “buy America”, or even say for example Quebec dairy, though for reasons other than human rights…. Surely if Canada imported dairy from the Saudi’s, Quebec would throw their hands up…. no?

Those are just as economically backwards.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It wasn't just a campaign to bring awareness. You know better than that. It was a response to global ESG pushes starting to label Canadian Oil Sands as a major global emitter. It was an effort at whataboutism to create some kind of equivalency between a poor environmental record on this side with a poor human rights record in those other countries. It also became a club to beat Quebec on their heads for refusing Energy East (announced mere months after the Lac Mégantic disaster). The idea was to shame Quebec into accepting the pipeline by pointing out their (in reality that of private refiners based there) imports of "unethical oil". Funny thing, nowhere in there did we ever hear any proposals to give communities and provinces along the way compensation or insurance against risks to reassure them.



Those are just as economically backwards.

Ok, I’ll look at it through the relative ESG lens then..Extremely poor human rights/funding of terrorism/war monger disctatirships VS relatively poor ghg’s… I’d still think investing in the Canadian industry makes a lot more sense from the Environmental, Social and Governance perspective.

It’s not very funny, I assure you, but you can look at the submission for approval to the regulator of all the conditions required to be met for developing such projects. The information is readily available then the public. You’ll find the information regarding insurance against risk to communities along the way.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Hackslack

Ok, I’ll look at it through the relative ESG lens then..Extremely poor human rights/funding of terrorism/war monger disctatirships VS relatively poor ghg’s… I’d still think investing in the Canadian industry makes a lot more sense from the Environmental, Social and Governance perspective.

A Canadian would say that. However, an ESG fund manager isn't going to have the same criteria. Moreover, since many of these oil cos in these other countries are state owned, there's not even really a choice to invest in them. So it's not like the ESG fund is choosing between an oilco in Canada vs. Iran. They are likely choosing between an oilco in Canada or some other sector entirely. The oil sands folks had and still have their chance. It's the foot dragging on getting serious about emissions and having to be dragged around by the nose that hurts their standing.

Originally Posted by Hackslack

It’s not very funny, I assure you, but you can look at the submission for approval to the regulator of all the conditions required to be met for developing such projects. The information is readily available then the public. You’ll find the information regarding insurance against risk to communities along the way.

I don't doubt there was some basic policy. But the thing with pipelines is that the risk/reward math looks very different for communities along the route of a pipeline vs. the originator. Even if there's basic spill insurance. At some point, overcoming this means serious negotiations and cutting cheques. Trying to guilt and browbeat ain't going to work.

[Hackslack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A Canadian would say that. However, an ESG fund manager isn't going to have the same criteria. Moreover, since many of these oil cos in these other countries are state owned, there's not even really a choice to invest in them. So it's not like the ESG fund is choosing between an oilco in Canada vs. Iran. They are likely choosing between an oilco in Canada or some other sector entirely. The oil sands folks had and still have their chance. It's the foot dragging on getting serious about emissions and having to be dragged around by the nose that hurts their standing.

Not talking fund managers. I’m talking about the Joe Biden’s, who puts thousands of his own people out of his work his very first day in office, only to beg the Saudi’s and Venezuela’s to pump more oil just months later because their economy is starving for more and more. Talk about a big fat egg on his face… Venezuela is a heavy oil blend, with higher GHGs per barrel, and Biden is drooling at their nipple for more. Why Venezuela over a secure, friendly source in Canada? ESG factor? Really?… probably helps support the message of the “ethical oil” ad in Times Square, to help inform people that the Venezuela’s and Saudi’s don’t have to be the option.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't doubt there was some basic policy. But the thing with pipelines is that the risk/reward math looks very different for communities along the route of a pipeline vs. the originator. Even if there's basic spill insurance. At some point, overcoming this means serious negotiations and cutting cheques. Trying to guilt and browbeat ain't going to work.

Nobody is discounting communities concerns. They have every right to ensure their way of life will not be negatively effected, in any way, whatsoever. There substantial negotiations and certainly massive cheques are cut, and guarantees. Guilting communities is not part of the playbook.