CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Unlike the old term to go west... Go east, a deep water port at Churchill gets you to deep water tankers.
|
|
|
Calgary & Alberta Economy
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
Yeah, I guess could do it. How much muskeg want to go through, digging a trench, filling it with gravel, insulating the pipeline and running thermosiphons to stop the permafrost from melting? A pipeline that is 50% longer. Any indication of more favourable First Nations? How long is a realistic construction season? Smaller, ice hardened crude tankers. Spill response across the entire North-West Passage. Heated terminal, pipes and tanks. All for an extra 8,000 km round trip for every voyage into the Pacific versus the upper BC Coast.
You can pay for much much much better consultation and partnerships with BC First Nations for the disadvantages of going to Churchill.
Just because Enbridge learned a lot of lessons the hard way in BC doesn't mean the west coast is an impossible project.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
My thinking was you go east to go east, Europe, the med, etc. My initial thought was following the Yellowhead Highway and then on to Thunder Bay but you'd need to switch to another deep water tanker after Montreal. I have been told TMX renders Northern BC routes useless.
Edit: Could also do Port Nelson instead of Churchill but either way.
Last edited:
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Best case would maybe be energy east?
darwink
Senior Member
It depends. A lot of projections assume status quo into the states and up to Toronto and Montreal. when that is no longer the case, very different options might work. Our options become more like Qatar with gas. They have two options: turn it into energy intensive goods, or find someway to export it.
darwink
Senior Member
It's still a not great option, it is just so long. The option also assumed that a continental trade in energy would continue to exist, which could mean the natural gas supply for eastern Canada could be sourced via another route.
That doesn't mean it is bad, as much of our past evaluations were based on assumptions that no longer exist. Just that likely it is not as good as lets say an export pure play to Grassy Point on the west coast.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
We're much better equipped to do the latter, are we not? The former requires a lot of things to fall into place.
My thinking was the feds could give Alberta a win without giving Quebec a loss. In electoral politics, the feds, no matter the political stripe cannot take a loss in Quebec.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Doesn't the pipeline already exist for energy east? we would just update it and reverse the flow from what I understand.
darwink
Senior Member
That was the hope. As time went on, engineers kept increasing the % of pipe that needed to be replaced, twinned, etc, hence the rapidly increasing cost projections.
Mountain Man
Senior Member
Wonder what the viability would be if the US becomes hostile to our oil...
trtcttc
Active Member
By the time any of these projects are even off the ground, the tariff threat is probably over? I cannot see the US tariff-ing our energy for 4 years. Most investment firms and pipeline companies also don't see this as a long term issue, so they won't be in a hurry to commit billions for a threat that may vanish in 2 months. see Enbridge's comments about Northern Gateway
Has there ever been a comprehensive review of the cost issues with TMX? Anti-pipeline supporters say "see it costs so much and is uneconomical", while pipeline supporters say "it's the gov ownership and burdensome regulations making it cost so much". Probably a mix of two but haven't found any good sources looking at it in detail.
Has there ever been a comprehensive review of the cost issues with TMX? Anti-pipeline supporters say "see it costs so much and is uneconomical", while pipeline supporters say "it's the gov ownership and burdensome regulations making it cost so much". Probably a mix of two but haven't found any good sources looking at it in detail.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Is TMX public FOIP'able?
darwink
Senior Member
Review no, but since it is highly regulated, and owned by the government, most of the documents are public. Four documents together paint a fulsome picture imo.
TMP's owner's 2022-23 annual report goes over challenges in brief.
"Five primary drivers have been identified in a root cause analysis of overall project cost changes. Key drivers are (1) engineering and plan maturity (55%); (2) external events (25%); (3) practices above standard construction (15%); (4) safety; and (5) accommodation of stakeholders (5%)."
Here is a regulatory filing for tolls from 2023. Check out section D which starts on page 26. .
TMP breaks down the overruns compared to the original approved CPCN at $5.7 billion on page 31:
These are certain costs that TMP didn't guarantee when applying for its original approval.
Another filing lists 14 reasons:
Steel costs; contracting strategy; spread 5B (contractor failure and replacement on the Coquihalla Summit to Bridal Veil Falls segment); technically challenging areas; use of horizontal directional drilling; more trenchless crossings than planned; decisions to use tunnel boring near Kamloops due for Indigenous accommodation; an alternative route near the Coldwater First Nation; the identification of 350 archaeological sites; 17 additional Mutual Benefit Agreements; the approach to birds and bird nests; the approach to amphibians; and flood response.
In addition to these, there is increased financing costs, as the project stretches longer without revenue, interest rates go up, and the amount needed to be financed goes up.
In 2022, TMP broke down cost drivers in detail and is an interesting read.
IMO as TM noted in one of the filing I came across today, they'd rather spend money to avoid potential stop work orders, rather than be subject to the stop work orders. So if you want something like 'we need to reduce regulations', it is hard to actually do so unless you name them. Do you want less scrutiny for species at risk? Archaeology? Water bodies with fish in them? Being ok with certain workplace accidents?
It is all well and good for a think tank to say less regulation. I really wish a think tank would think about HOW to do less regulation.
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
They want things built like they did it in the immediate postwar era. Just build it and deal with the consequences later.
Generally I do think we will have to move to more adaptation versus mitigation. We're already too tight to the threshold for minimizing global temperature rise. People have no will for mitigation, it is too make-believe, but you can at least spin adaptation into physical things people can see to stop the fallout.
DougB
Senior Member
Churchill isn't all weather and is in the wrong basin. The real export opportunities for oil continue to be to Asia. Even for LNG, the US Gulf Coast has the competitive advantage to export to Europe.