HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Mar 11, 2022, 10:46 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 21,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
Here's a link to information showing all of the oil refineries in Canada:

https://www.canadaaction.ca/canadian...sked-questions

I didn't realize that the Valero Jean-Gaulin refinery in Lévis QC has the second highest production capacity after the Irving one in Saint John NB.
Good list. It does say capacity though, like the big Edmonton ones aren't operating at 100% as far as I know.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 2:09 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebasketballgeek View Post
Canada has the capability to be an energy superpower in Nuclear and renewables we don’t need oil and coal to fuel our energy. BC, Quebec, and Manitoba are almost entirely on a renewable energy grid. Alberta and Saskatchewan are the sunniest places in Canada so there’s huge solar potential there as well.

Saskatchewan by themselves can be an energy superpower on par with any nation in the world because of all the different types of energy that can be produced in the province.
People are too scared of nuclear because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. The public does not understand how safe Canadian nuclear plants are. They would be a good stop gap between carbon emitting plants and renewables.

Part of the bigger problem is there are no massive employment in those sectors when compared to gas and oil.Yes, there are jobs, but the low skilled jobs that the oil sector is known for (the ones you do not need a trade certification or a degree) does not exist in nuclear.

Another issue is that those jobs that would exist in Nuclear likely wouldn't be in Fort Mack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00 View Post
I am cool with approving oil projects. At this point, they should be forced to post bonds for cleanup and wind down costs up front, so that the taxpayer doesn't get stuck with the bill when the energy transition inevitably turns most of them into stranded assets.

A 10-15 year project has a substantial amount of risk. Especially given how fast technology is progressing and how fast the cleantech industries are ramping. Taxpayers should not be forced to carry that risk in anyway, while shareholders suck up fat profits from temporarily high oil prices.
If they did that, there is a good chance nothing would get done. Corporate accountability is not a normal thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Guess we shouldn't have sold off PetroCanada after all.
How would it have changed today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleK View Post
This is bang on. Alberta is on track to have retired the last coal units by the end of 2023, only to be replaced with modestly better gas generators. It won't be long before the climate folks put pressure on them to move to non-emitting generation, likely long before the end of their economic life. That makes for a very different investment decision and will certainly lead to higher prices for consumers and industry in the near and medium term.

Sadly, coal use in the US has gone up 16% in the past year. As gas supply in Europe tightens due to the conflict in Ukraine, I would expect the coal use in Europe to increase year over year.

From a pure climate perspective, Energy East was the pipeline we needed with an LNG terminal in the Maritimes to get gas to Europe. That was a huge missed opportunity, especially when one considers the current state of the energy crisis in Europe.

The silver lining in all of this was the last time the world had such a severe energy shock in the 1970s, that was the impetus to get the current fleet of nukes built.

The answer to the climate question is not renewables. We need safe, reliable, cost-effective, non-emitting base load generation. That starts and ends with nuclear.
Were those missed opportunities, or were they smart decisions for the future of energy?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 2:49 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by swimmer_spe View Post
People are too scared of nuclear because of Chernobyl and Fukushima. The public does not understand how safe Canadian nuclear plants are. They would be a good stop gap between carbon emitting plants and renewables.

Part of the bigger problem is there are no massive employment in those sectors when compared to gas and oil.Yes, there are jobs, but the low skilled jobs that the oil sector is known for (the ones you do not need a trade certification or a degree) does not exist in nuclear.

Another issue is that those jobs that would exist in Nuclear likely wouldn't be in Fort Mack.

....
Actually one of the proposal that has been around for years is a nuclear power plant in Fort Mac. CANDU reactors have a lot of waste heat/steam. Oil sands processing could potentially use that waste head and in the process reduce their use of natural gas to heat water. It would have a positive impact in reducing the carbon footprint of oil sands.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 2:55 AM
swimmer_spe swimmer_spe is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 10,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Actually one of the proposal that has been around for years is a nuclear power plant in Fort Mac. CANDU reactors have a lot of waste heat/steam. Oil sands processing could potentially use that waste head and in the process reduce their use of natural gas to heat water. It would have a positive impact in reducing the carbon footprint of oil sands.
That would be a great idea. I am guessing it won't happen though...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 3:30 AM
ericmacm's Avatar
ericmacm ericmacm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SW Ontario
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Actually one of the proposal that has been around for years is a nuclear power plant in Fort Mac. CANDU reactors have a lot of waste heat/steam. Oil sands processing could potentially use that waste head and in the process reduce their use of natural gas to heat water. It would have a positive impact in reducing the carbon footprint of oil sands.
That power plant was actually planned to be in Peace River (originally Lac Cardinal) not Fort Mac, but the point still stands, as it was intended to be used to provide power to oil sands operations. It was unfortunately cancelled due to public pressure. I hope the plan gets resurrected, considering we're moving back to viewing nuclear power in a good light again.
__________________
Opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Come See My Work: Mississauga Future Skyline Model | Pan-Canadian Future Skylines Project - Kelowna, Saskatoon, Windsor, London, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Barrie, Ottawa, Halifax​​​ | Astrophotography Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 5:27 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by goodgrowth View Post
The minister in charge is a former Greenpeace member and has Quebec climate activists breathing down his neck on it.

Even more annoying is the Bloc Quebecois being vocally against this project. Funny how a party that is voted to primarily represent Quebec interests have opinions on large projects outside their jurisdiction.

The Bloc Quebecois of course support Bombardier because jobs and whose main export is now PRIVATE JETS. Literally the monster truck of air travel.

Remember folks fossil fuels are bad*

*conditional on what point of the supply chain it occurs.
I've always found it interesting how Quebec refuses to accept dirty oil from Alberta but has no trepidations about importing blood soaked oil from the Middle East.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 5:30 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 10,659
As far as new sources of energy are concerned, I don't think we should be investing anything in oil or even NG. Oil is on it's way out regardless of the situation in the Ukraine and NG is probably only a decade behind it.

Canada should be focusing our future on hydrogen exports that will be the replacement of both of them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 5:58 AM
Loco101's Avatar
Loco101 Loco101 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Timmins, Northern Ontario
Posts: 7,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I've always found it interesting how Quebec refuses to accept dirty oil from Alberta but has no trepidations about importing blood soaked oil from the Middle East.
That is incorrect. The right-wing media seems to keep repeating that still. And the country that Quebec imported the most crude oil from until changes were made was Algeria in North Africa, not the Middle East.

Look at the change in this chart showing 2012 and 2017. I have read that crude oil from Alberta oil sands now makes up more than half of what refined in Quebec.



Source: https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...c-gets-its-oil
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 8:49 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I've always found it interesting how Quebec refuses to accept dirty oil from Alberta but has no trepidations about importing blood soaked oil from the Middle East.
Attributing decisions made by the free market to provinces or governments.

Quebec (the province and its people) don't buy crude oil. They buy gasoline or other petroleum products at local gas stations from Shell or Petro Canada etc. At that point they have no idea where the raw crude product came from.

The oil refineries buys crude oil. They will have a minimum quality standard and honestly are going to go with who ever has the lowest price and can deliver to acceptable timeline. They buyer at Valero who is getting a shipment for their refinery in Quebec is not going to call the provincial government and ask if they should get US or Algerian product this week.

Where the province has a say is in accepting the construction of an oil pipeline or not. As well the province can set the environment constraints around the pipeline. Even then the experience in BC is the provinces have very limited say at the end of the day if the feds want to push through the pipeline. That makes sense pipelines are federal jurisdiction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 8:59 AM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 9,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loco101 View Post
That is incorrect. The right-wing media seems to keep repeating that still. And the country that Quebec imported the most crude oil from until changes were made was Algeria in North Africa, not the Middle East.

Look at the change in this chart showing 2012 and 2017. I have read that crude oil from Alberta oil sands now makes up more than half of what refined in Quebec.
.....
Source: https://www.nationalobserver.com/201...c-gets-its-oil
So why the change? Suncor.

The oil refinery in Montreal was owned by Petro Canada. Around 2009 Petro Canada was purchased by Suncor. Given them a year or two to do the corporate integration into a single company and for existing supply contracts to wind down. Over time your more than likely to see a transition to having a Suncor refinery buy more and more crude from Suncor oil sands operations.

This was not the province deciding it wanted to switch crude sources.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 12:29 PM
davidivivid's Avatar
davidivivid davidivivid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Ville de Québec City
Posts: 2,877
In the last few years, I've posted on numerous occasions on these boards the real portrait of Quebec's oil imports but obviously, right wing disinformation won't let go so easily.

According to a study by HEC Montreal, as of june 2018, 53% of the oil imported by Quebec comes from canadian producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. (40% USA and 6% Algeria) and in 2019, 100% of the oil imports were from North America. This change has come about following the reversal of Enbridge's Line 9B in 2015.

Quebec's refinery capacity is about 405 000 barils per day. If we suppose that Quebec refineries function to their full capacity, it would mean that Quebec bought about 215 000 barils per day from western producers in 2018 (78 million yearly).

http://energie.hec.ca/wp-content/upl...EQ2019_WEB.pdf
__________________
"I went on a diet, swore off drinking and heavy eating, and in fourteen days I lost two weeks" Joe E. Lewis

Last edited by davidivivid; Mar 12, 2022 at 12:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Mar 12, 2022, 12:34 PM
Truenorth00 Truenorth00 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 24,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
I've always found it interesting how Quebec refuses to accept dirty oil from Alberta but has no trepidations about importing blood soaked oil from the Middle East.
Because they really don't much oil from the Middle East?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Mar 23, 2022, 6:20 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
Near Generational
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidivivid View Post
In the last few years, I've posted on numerous occasions on these boards the real portrait of Quebec's oil imports but obviously, right wing disinformation won't let go so easily.

According to a study by HEC Montreal, as of june 2018, 53% of the oil imported by Quebec comes from canadian producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. (40% USA and 6% Algeria) and in 2019, 100% of the oil imports were from North America. This change has come about following the reversal of Enbridge's Line 9B in 2015.

Quebec's refinery capacity is about 405 000 barils per day. If we suppose that Quebec refineries function to their full capacity, it would mean that Quebec bought about 215 000 barils per day from western producers in 2018 (78 million yearly).

http://energie.hec.ca/wp-content/upl...EQ2019_WEB.pdf
Thank you for sharing this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 5:38 AM
craner's Avatar
craner craner is offline
Go Tall or Go Home
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper View Post
Attributing decisions made by the free market to provinces or governments.

Quebec (the province and its people) don't buy crude oil. They buy gasoline or other petroleum products at local gas stations from Shell or Petro Canada etc. At that point they have no idea where the raw crude product came from.

The oil refineries buys crude oil. They will have a minimum quality standard and honestly are going to go with who ever has the lowest price and can deliver to acceptable timeline. They buyer at Valero who is getting a shipment for their refinery in Quebec is not going to call the provincial government and ask if they should get US or Algerian product this week.

Where the province has a say is in accepting the construction of an oil pipeline or not. As well the province can set the environment constraints around the pipeline. Even then the experience in BC is the provinces have very limited say at the end of the day if the feds want to push through the pipeline. That makes sense pipelines are federal jurisdiction.
Great post - makes sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Mar 24, 2022, 1:43 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Great to have this thread. it will help balance out the Provincial Economies thread, which often gets taken over for long stretches by oil-related debates.
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2022, 3:27 PM
DoubleK DoubleK is offline
Near Generational
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Calgary
Posts: 1,447
Bay du Nord approved by the feds.

Still a long way from production, but any good news for our N&L friends is welcome.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2022, 5:34 PM
ericmacm's Avatar
ericmacm ericmacm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SW Ontario
Posts: 716
The approval of Bay du Nord was inevitable after the 2020 Federal Regional Impact Assessment for offshore NL drilling concluded that oil extraction from 100 potential new wells in the area over 10-12 years was not going to produce significant GHG impacts (within the scope of drilling, broader downstream GHG emission contributions were not included since it's hard to quantify). It was also considered unlikely to result in a catastrophic blowout or spill given that industry standards have already lowered the risk of these incidents as much as reasonably practicable.

We will likely see more of these projects crop up and gain approval in the near future.
__________________
Opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Come See My Work: Mississauga Future Skyline Model | Pan-Canadian Future Skylines Project - Kelowna, Saskatoon, Windsor, London, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Barrie, Ottawa, Halifax​​​ | Astrophotography Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2022, 5:50 PM
svlt svlt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericmacm View Post
The approval of Bay du Nord was inevitable after the 2020 Federal Regional Impact Assessment for offshore NL drilling concluded that oil extraction from 100 potential new wells in the area over 10-12 years was not going to produce significant GHG impacts (within the scope of drilling, broader downstream GHG emission contributions were not included since it's hard to quantify). It was also considered unlikely to result in a catastrophic blowout or spill given that industry standards have already lowered the risk of these incidents as much as reasonably practicable.

We will likely see more of these projects crop up and gain approval in the near future.
Good insight. I also like the Environment Minister's comments on trusting the expertise to an agency of scientists rather than politicizing the decision making and I hope he continues to follow through with that. He has been doing a decent job of shaking off the Greenpeace attachment in his role.

This is a much, much needed boost to NL's economy and I hope Equinor follows through with this approval and its conditions and completes the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Apr 7, 2022, 7:13 PM
ericmacm's Avatar
ericmacm ericmacm is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: SW Ontario
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by svlt View Post
Good insight. I also like the Environment Minister's comments on trusting the expertise to an agency of scientists rather than politicizing the decision making and I hope he continues to follow through with that. He has been doing a decent job of shaking off the Greenpeace attachment in his role.

This is a much, much needed boost to NL's economy and I hope Equinor follows through with this approval and its conditions and completes the project.
I definitely agree, hopefully the Minister of the Environment continues this trend moving forward. I didn't think he was a good pick initially because of his past, but trying to move past the politicization of these projects and utilizing the expertise of agencies is a good sign. Definitely a good read of the room considering the new uncertainties in the global oil market given the Ukraine-Russia situation.

I hope so too. NL needs help, full stop. One can hope that the new revenue is managed appropriately, but I won't be holding my breath.
__________________
Opinions expressed here are solely my own and do not represent those of my employer.

Come See My Work: Mississauga Future Skyline Model | Pan-Canadian Future Skylines Project - Kelowna, Saskatoon, Windsor, London, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Barrie, Ottawa, Halifax​​​ | Astrophotography Thread
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2022, 8:17 PM
SignalHillHiker's Avatar
SignalHillHiker SignalHillHiker is offline
I ♣ Baby Seals
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sin Jaaawnz, Newf'nland
Posts: 34,658
BP is quitting the oil sands, opening an office in St. John's, and buying out Cenovus' share of Bay du Nord. Very minor blip for AP but potentially a good deal for us, given the outsized impact of such a move in our smaller market.
__________________
Note to self: "The plural of anecdote is not evidence."
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:53 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.