News   Dec 10, 2019
 41     0 
News   Dec 10, 2019
 36     0 
News   Dec 09, 2019
 230     0 

Calgary & Alberta Economy

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,430
Yeah, I can't say I agree with the arguments, or the policy prescription (no energy imports, since that actually hurts Alberta), but the conclusion that energy transition is something that takes time is right on.

I'd also say that I'd rather have a carbon tax to help steer the transition, rather than regulation (his call for central planning), since regulation to reach the same point will be more expensive.
 
Last edited:

Surrealplaces

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 24, 2015
Messages
6,773
Reaction score
14,142
Location
Calgary
I agree wholeheartedly about energy transition taking time. I have no doubt in my mind that the world including Alberta will continue towards alternative/green energy sources, but it doesn't happen overnight, and Alberta (and Canada) needs to keep its energy industry going while it winds it down.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,430
Looks like we are trying to bypass BC altogether. I could see the Eagle Spirit pipeline proposal switching its proposed route to Alaska as well if the current regulatory environment remains unchanged.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/alaska-alberta-railway-trump-permission-1.5081878
The belief that it is easier to build in the USA is spurious. The Alaska pipeline was only authorized in the 70s by emergency powers, as it was stuck in an infinite loop of lawsuits. Add to that a Presidential permit, which would happen in the next Presidential term.

While it is a somewhat serious proposal (money has been spent over the years), I don't think it is in any way realistic since it would be stuck in a Keystone XL type purgatory for a long time.
 
Last edited:

Chowda7

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
83
Reaction score
218
The belief that it is easier to build in the USA is spurious. The Alaska pipeline was only authorized in the 70s by emergency powers, as it was stuck in an infinite loop of lawsuits. Add to that a Presidential permit, which would happen in the next Presidential term.

This is not a serious proposal. I'd put a much bigger bet on Eagle Spirit than on this one.
This has nothing to do with a pipeline. It's an extension of an existing rail line.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,430
This has nothing to do with a pipeline. It's an extension of an existing rail line.
Because that makes opposition go away for some reason? https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-zenith-energy-oil-terminal-expansion-city-hall-environment/


Similar studies are required, since cross border infrastructure requires a Presidential permit, which means the full environmental assessment and consultation with state, tribal, and local government applies with this just as it would with a pipeline.
 

Chowda7

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
83
Reaction score
218
Because that makes opposition go away for some reason? https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-zenith-energy-oil-terminal-expansion-city-hall-environment/


Similar studies are required, since cross border infrastructure requires a Presidential permit, which means the full environmental assessment and consultation with state, tribal, and local government applies with this just as it would with a pipeline.
I understand you're an expert on these economic issues but you're pretty antagonistic when it comes to these kind of discussions so I'm not gonna bother continuing this conversation
 

gsunnyg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
482
Reaction score
862
At this point you might as well build through the US, odds are it will get built sooner than in Canada. Minorities are given too big of a voice in Canada. Whats going on in Canada regarding opposition to pipelines is borderline economic terrorism IMO. On top of that, regardless of everyones political views, we have a clown of a PM who is blatantly targeting Albertas energy sector. After these 4 years of Trudeau's government, i'm convinced Hinterland vs Heartland Staple thesis still goes strong in Canada, such a shame. Just my quick two cents.
 
Last edited:

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,430
Those three pipelines mentioned in that article are exclusively through Texas, so have no inter-jurisdictional issues or federal government involvement (unless they cross federal land, which they would purposely avoid, or a federal waterway). Pipelines exclusively through Alberta pipelines are as uncontroversial as those Texas lines.
 

JonnyCanuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
624
Reaction score
770
All I can say is that in the last 10 years, the U.S. has built tens of thousand of kilometres of new pipeline within its own borders. Whether it was contained in one state or across state lines. All of this infrastructure is to support their booming shale oil industry. Was it easy ...NO. There are opposition groups in the U.S. just as there are in Canada. The difference in the U.S. is that they got it done. There was some urgency to the task. There is the political will.
That is the stark difference between the U.S and Canada. That is why the U.S is surpassing us as an oil exporter and one day, will tell us they don't want our oil anymore. Then we will be in deep 'doodoo'.
 

darwink

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
1,108
Reaction score
1,430
All I can say is that in the last 10 years, the U.S. has built tens of thousand of kilometres of new pipeline within its own borders. Whether it was contained in one state or across state lines. All of this infrastructure is to support their booming shale oil industry. Was it easy ...NO. There are opposition groups in the U.S. just as there are in Canada. The difference in the U.S. is that they got it done. There was some urgency to the task. There is the political will.
That is the stark difference between the U.S and Canada. That is why the U.S is surpassing us as an oil exporter and one day, will tell us they don't want our oil anymore. Then we will be in deep 'doodoo'.
Yeah, the production scenarios out of the USA are a wakeup call. Really depends on whether the USA would ever cut us off from their shipping network, otherwise, everything is ok. As Eagle Spirit gets closer to ready, hopefully it aligns with a friendly government.

Here is a recent list I found: https://rbnenergy.com/midi/crude-projects

With a handy map: https://rbnenergy.com/midi/crude-projects/map
179885


These are all the interstate projects which have been completed:
179881

Blue is Dakota Access, which is new ROW. Was subject to protests, and needed an Army Corp approval - was eventually brought into service by Trump. Key there is the protests were centred in the oil beneficiary state, not in other states, a strategic misstep.
The ones through Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma are in the White Cliffs ROW, and are two lines which merged into one.
The aqua line is a conversion of a natural gas line to oil. Can't readily see any needs for permits (the federal water crossing permits would have been granted to the original line).
The green line is the reversal of an existing crude line.
The purple line is a new feedstock pipeline (new ROW) to supply Valero's Memphis refinery (replacing barge traffic up from the Gulf).
The maroon line is an extension to gather product which passes into New Mexico.
The red line is the Bayou Bridge, it connects an oil-and-gas hub in Texas with oil refineries in Louisiana. (the Trump administration decided it didn't need federal permits despite crossing many federal waterways).

So yes, Dakota access was built, which is the only major new ROW line through non oil and gas states. The line through Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma is along an existing ROW, similar to TMX in that respect, but dissimilar in that they are oil and gas states. The green line is through oil and gas states, and is a reversal, so similar to the Line 9 reversal. The aqua line, the equivalent of Energy East, but I can't find on a very superficial search evidence of an environmental assessment type process. All the states along the aqua line, the alternative would have been an increase in barge traffic on the Mississippi.

Unique circumstances on all of them, including the Trump administration throwing out its own laws (which will hopefully help Keystone and Line 3 be finished before his term is up).

I don't think anyone in Canada is arguing for the patchwork quilt of regulations down in the USA, but their successes shouldn't be seen as illustrative. Kinder Morgan cancelled a line connecting California across the mountains there due to regulatory uncertainty. A California only line is on hold. Enbridge put a twinning on hold from Wyoming to Cushing. Enbridge cancelled the Dakota servicing Sandpiper line. Shell cancelled Westward Ho between Texas and Louisiana. Seahorse from Cushing to Louisiana just finished open season, but I bet they will modify the route to only have it go through oil states and bypass Arkansas.
 

Attachments

JonnyCanuck

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 15, 2017
Messages
624
Reaction score
770

Tarsus

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 28, 2019
Messages
50
Reaction score
91
I have a question for the experts regarding unemployment stats. Do new international immigrants count for unemployment stats even when they've only just arrived to Canada?
 

Top