News   Apr 03, 2020
Pastel Morning
 6.3K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 7.8K     4 
News   Apr 02, 2020
Soon to be Gone
 4.6K     0 

Calgary & Alberta Economy

Mountain Man said:
The one thing I wonder is if we do get some new pipelines, whether global oil companies will want to have a presence here again.
Click to expand...
My understanding: The old growing presence here, leasing land in the oil sands, was a pre-shale phenomenon where to comply with accounting rules which enable listing on stock exchanges, companies needed to demonstrate they were going concerns by maintaining a certain percentage of yearly production as proven reserves. Typically at least 10 years of production, if not more. Oil sands production while expensive is very reliable and requires little investment to classify as proven.

We might see that again as other basins (or current technology exploitation of basins) move towards their Hubbert's peak. Intent to produce is not required, only the option to.
 
I'm having a tough time taking this one seriously, seems more performative than anything.

Overlooking the ice issues, by the time this could get built the Ukraine war will be over and Europe will be back on Russian energy.

The solution to the problem province preventing an east coast energy link is simple, if they don't agree to a no nonsense energy corridor then they can get iced out of their welfare payment equalization money.
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
I'm having a tough time taking this one seriously, seems more performative than anything.

Overlooking the ice issues, by the time this could get built the Ukraine war will be over and Europe will be back on Russian energy.

The solution to the problem province preventing an east coast energy link is simple, if they don't agree to a no nonsense energy corridor then they can get iced out of their welfare payment equalization money.
Click to expand...
There is no need.

Would help to have a proposal first. Energy east was always quite a weak proposition. And that was before its budget started spiralling. TC was looking for a way to kill it without being left with the bill to date for years.
 
darwink said:
There is no need.

Would help to have a proposal first. Energy east was always quite a weak proposition. And that was before its budget started spiralling. TC was looking for a way to kill it without being left with the bill to date for years.
Click to expand...

You may be right about that, I'm not so much interested in government construction projects as much as having an appropriate framework in place that allows industry to act quickly if and when the time comes.

A national energy corridor and interprovincial free trade are not concepts that should have taken 160 years to enact, but here we are..

That all said, I imagine there will be some significant energy requirements for processing the ores from the coming ring of fire mines in north ON, so maybe we'll see a portion of the energy corridor developed sooner than later.
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
national energy corridor
Click to expand...
No one has explained how that would actually work beyond magic. Permitting is really technical and you can’t disconnect that from doing the work on the ground. There are ways to do permitting faster but they cost more since it is doing things simultaneously and going back to align things as the preferred alternative evolves.

I think an all Canadian line to around Cardinal/Iroquois in Ontario is very likely. 700,00-800,000 barrels. Maybe some investigation of whether anyone wants to export overseas from the Montreal tanker loading port currently used to supply Quebec City.
 
Last edited:
darwink said:
No one has explained how that would actually work beyond magic. Permitting is really technical and you can’t disconnect that from doing the work on the ground. There are ways to do permitting faster but they cost more since it is doing things simultaneously and going back to align things as the preferred alternative evolves.

I think an all Canadian line to around Cardinal/Iroquois in Ontario is very likely. 700,00-800,000 barrels. Maybe some investigation of whether anyone wants to export overseas from the Montreal tanker loading port currently used to supply Quebec City.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying things, but at a high level I don't see why it would need to be much different than something like the ring road projects.

Because the feds are responsible for things like approving environmental assessment and dealing with the various native groups impacted, they should be the ones to establish a corridor.

Find the best, or least worse route to run some pipelines to the major ports, maybe accommodate power lines as well in case anyone ever cracks the ambient superconductor nut.

If and when industry decides its build time, then the regular permitting can go ahead without lengthy environmental reviews and native consultations.

Time is of the essence with many of these projects, and excessive bureaucracy is never good for business.
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
If and when industry decides its build time, then the regular permitting can go ahead without lengthy environmental reviews and native consultations.
Click to expand...
Here is where it falls apart. The permitting is the review and the review is permitting and both interact with consultations.

Because how can you know impact if you don’t know what is proposed and where.

what you may be talking is permitting and then waiting with a permit. In effect that is what coastal gas link was just for economic reasons.

In the case of a general purpose corridor, who is paying for that? Should the corridor project permit 1 pipeline or 5? What if a sixth comes along? What if the goods shipped change entirely? What if one project has technical characteristics that preclude the others?

It is a concept that sounds easy until you think about it.

Best just to do a good job on consultations rather than thinking adding another layer of process somehow makes it easier. There is a model on how to do it! It just needs to be done.
 
darwink said:
Because how can you know impact if you don’t know what is proposed and where.
Click to expand...

I see this from the reverse viewpoint. The corridor use would define what impacts are acceptable which would then define where the lowest risk route would go.

darwink said:
In the case of a general purpose corridor, who is paying for that? Should the corridor project permit 1 pipeline or 5? What if a sixth comes along? What if the goods shipped change entirely? What if one project has technical characteristics that preclude the others?
Click to expand...

Given that much of a corridor would pass through crown land, I think it's reasonable for the feds to pick up the cost of any remaining property acquisition. That can be their cost share on the project.

I also don't see a fully general purpose corridor being practical, an idea transportation corridor would likely have a very different route than an energy corridor would.

I'm not sure there's a need for many new transportation corridors though, just the proper improvements to the ones we already have.
 
InfrastructureEnthusiast said:
Given that much of a corridor would pass through crown land, I think it's reasonable for the feds to pick up the cost of any remaining property acquisition. That can be their cost share on the project.
Click to expand...
Oh. I'm not even talking about acquisition. That is easy, that exists today, and is easy. Who owns the land doesn't make the process harder or easier (though avoiding reserves is advisable). I am talking about doing the archaeology, the natural asset surveys, all the geology and geotech. For all that work, you're building a road down the entire thing.

A general purpose corridor is what is talked about. Throw everything in to try to reduce opposition somehow.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top