News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 5.9K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.5K     3 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.4K     0 

Calgary & Alberta Economy

The reality that I might have to lose everything I have here and move back to Ontario because of that filthy flapping cünt is quite soul crushing.
 
Last edited:
Changed it. Better?
 
darwink said:
We're about to get squeezed big time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882469956258070727

https://twitter.com/x/status/1882461777554006340

How long until our local radical businesses are screaming for annexation.

This is going to be brutal.
Click to expand...
Someone should've reminded him of the water he said we can send down to California, seemed like he needed us then.
Doesn't need anything from us, yet want to tariff our trade deficit. US wouldn't need tariffs if they simply buy nothing from us.
Doesn't need any of our resources, yet want to annex our country
Going to unleash the US energy industry, want to lower prices for energy globally.

To be honest in the long run, probably not bad for Canada. We needed to diversify away from the US generally. I think this time most countries ae more clear eyed that this isn't a blip and with people firmly in his control, a lot more damage will be done.
 
trtcttc said:
see Enbridge's comments about Northern Gateway
Click to expand...
Going back to this, there is a reason they say this. Look at how much capacity Enbridge has been able to add to the mainline over the last decade. Equivalent to more than 2 Northern Gateways.
1737997333759.png


It isn't that they think Northern Gateway redux would necessarily be bad. As a pipeline company, they just don't care. They will build what people are willing to pay for. What Enbridge is saying is that they don't foresee a world where people want to pay for such a project.

Now, lets say the feds announce an output subsidy -- $5 a barrel for deliveries to incremental Canadian and non USA customers where the barrel does not enter the USA, maybe $100 a barrel subsidy for running a project through an approval process (front loaded, perhaps a 50/50 cost share?). That would change the math.
 
darwink said:
Going back to this, there is a reason they say this. Look at how much capacity Enbridge has been able to add to the mainline over the last decade. Equivalent to more than 2 Northern Gateways.
View attachment 627918

It isn't that they think Northern Gateway redux would necessarily be bad. As a pipeline company, they just don't care. They will build what people are willing to pay for. What Enbridge is saying is that they don't foresee a world where people want to pay for such a project.

Now, lets say the feds announce an output subsidy -- $5 a barrel for deliveries to incremental Canadian and non USA customers where the barrel does not enter the USA, maybe $100 a barrel subsidy for running a project through an approval process (front loaded, perhaps a 50/50 cost share?). That would change the math.
Click to expand...
Any new project is up and running after a Trump term. Do they have the stomach to actually put in an effort to move away from your biggest buyer?
 
darwink said:
Going back to this, there is a reason they say this. Look at how much capacity Enbridge has been able to add to the mainline over the last decade. Equivalent to more than 2 Northern Gateways.
View attachment 627918

It isn't that they think Northern Gateway redux would necessarily be bad. As a pipeline company, they just don't care. They will build what people are willing to pay for. What Enbridge is saying is that they don't foresee a world where people want to pay for such a project.

Now, lets say the feds announce an output subsidy -- $5 a barrel for deliveries to incremental Canadian and non USA customers where the barrel does not enter the USA, maybe $100 a barrel subsidy for running a project through an approval process (front loaded, perhaps a 50/50 cost share?). That would change the math.
Click to expand...
Eastbound takeaway is a different discussion.

I can't see Enbridge or others looking at another west coast pipeline until uncertainty is resolved around
-sale of TMX
-how does new government change CER processes
-what does new government do to the ban on loading heavy oil grades to tankers on BC's northern coast

Also, most of the TMX volume is shipping to PADD V, with very little going to Asia. This is still a win as PADD V prices off Brent. Additional takeaway, such as Gateway Redux, may still go mostly to PADD V. The US has no crude oil pipelines to the west coast other than ones that move production within California.
 
DougB said:
Also, most of the TMX volume is shipping to PADD V, with very little going to Asia. This is still a win as PADD V prices off Brent. Additional takeaway, such as Gateway Redux, may still go mostly to PADD V. The US has no crude oil pipelines to the west coast other than ones that move production within California.
Click to expand...
This is fine, as the market is fungible, even the ability to get a price cascades back through the system.

We will see really fast how rapidly the TMX goes to capacity with tariffs. right now there is capacity in the system, and then incremental capacity on top for ~300k more per day. The pipeline as it is today cannot hit that volume while delivering 90% of the volume to the dock.
 
Question from an oil and gas dummy. Can we export our oil anywhere besides the US? My impression was our heavy crude could only be refined in a few places, mainly the US.
 
I think we can upgrade our crude and ship it anywhere that can process conventional oil. Upgraders cost about as much as a refinery though I believe, and there is one in the works by Edmonton. I only have a tiny bit of knowledge on this stuff, I work in Architecture not O&G lol.

Shell is selling it's stake in the oil sands and is focusing on the upgrader project as well as a CCS facility.
 
Atticus said:
Question from an oil and gas dummy. Can we export our oil anywhere besides the US? My impression was our heavy crude could only be refined in a few places, mainly the US.
Click to expand...
Yes. But. It isn't that they captured us, but we captured their market and locked them in. Now neither side has flexibility and both sides are screwed because some real estate people now control commodity trading rules.

The refinery has to already be set up to accept similar crude. Iraq, Saudi, Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, some of Russia.
A very rough approximation:
1738260958379.png


For rule of thumb purposes to help understand this world, when the price difference between Maya and WCS is less than the cost of tolls to the Gulf +$2, WCS is worth more due to excess demand in the isolated market we serve (the Mid-West). When WCS is worth less than Maya-tolls-$2, then there is over supply or not enough transportation capacity to market.

There is a lot of heavy refining capacity in the world. Of course, a lot of the capacity is proximate to heavy production. Or is the USA. A very don't take this as gospel graph, but of general truths.
Heavy refining capacity (and hard to say about Singapore, I think they can but prefer not to source heavy)
1738261772370.png


IF the USA would allow loading of Canadian crude in Texas, markets would rebalance to have a WCS price not discounted by the tariff much at all, only by the extra transportation premium on the imported crude to replace the Canadian crude, and the extra transportation on the Canadian crude compared to the delivery points for that foreign crude.

In that world, it is also very important to remember than while Canadian crude might end up with a 25% tariff, other world crude will have a 10% tariff. So the margin is 15%. And either the market will be efficient and most of that 15% will be eaten by American consumers and logistics companies, working around the tariffs, or inefficient (the Americans ban Canadian re-export but continue to allow American export), and another layer of hell breaks lose.
 
Last edited:
darwink said:
Yes. But. It isn't that they captured us, but we captured their market and locked them in. Now neither side has flexibility and both sides are screwed because some real estate people now control commodity trading rules.

The refinery has to already be set up to accept similar crude. Iraq, Saudi, Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, some of Russia.
A very rough approximation:
View attachment 628737

For rule of thumb purposes to help understand this world, when the price difference between Maya and WCS is less than the cost of tolls to the Gulf +$2, WCS is worth more due to excess demand in the isolated market we serve (the Mid-West). When WCS is worth less than Maya-tolls-$2, then there is over supply or not enough transportation capacity to market.

There is a lot of heavy refining capacity in the world. Of course, a lot of the capacity is proximate to heavy production. Or is the USA. A very don't take this as gospel graph, but of general truths.
Heavy refining capacity (and hard to say about Singapore, I think they can but prefer not to source heavy)
View attachment 628739

IF the USA would allow loading of Canadian crude in Texas, markets would rebalance to have a WCS price not discounted by the tariff much at all, only by the extra transportation premium on the imported crude to replace the Canadian crude, and the extra transportation on the Canadian crude compared to the delivery points for that foreign crude.

In that world, it is also very important to remember than while Canadian crude might end up with a 25% tariff, other world crude will have a 10% tariff. So the margin is 15%. And either the market will be efficient and most of that 15% will be eaten by American consumers and logistics companies, working around the tariffs, or inefficient (the Americans ban Canadian re-export but continue to allow American export), and another layer of hell breaks lose.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that in depth explanation.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top