Pipelines

[Czech_pivo]

More volatile and they lost a huge chunk of it when the firm went belly up, as employers offer stock options instead of cash. I am not an expert on it, but my wife and I were looking at each other and thankfully for what we have.

Sad to hear that occurred. Sadly, it could just as easily occur here if you work for a company that has a defined contributions plan instead of a defined benefits plan.
Outside of government, very very few defined benefits pension plans around anymore. Even with the banks all new employees are in the defined contributions plan nowadays.

 

[Kirkhill]

FIRST READING: Just how far behind the world Canada has been allowed to lag on LNG

Canada just produced its first-ever export-ready LNG. Australia did that in the 1980s.

nationalpost.com

In all the world’s other major producers of natural gas, this moment came years if not decades ago. The United States exported its first LNG in 2016, Qatar dispatched its first LNG vessels in 1997 and Australia was pioneering LNG export technology as early as 1989.

All three are now raking in hundreds of billions in annual LNG money that could have been Canada’s if it been able to reach the starting line earlier than Sunday morning.

In Australia, the LNG export sector is now bringing in the Canadian equivalent of $220 million per day. According to the most recent figures from Australian Energy Producers, annual LNG export earnings were now worth $81.5 billion CDN.

This kind of money added to the Canadian economy would represent a three per cent rise in overall GDP. Put another way, it would be akin to adding a Manitoba’s worth of extra GDP to the economy (Manitoba’s GDP was $91.9 billion in 2023).

80 BCAD per annum is equivalent to 4 of Danielle Smith's Million Barrel Per Day bitumen pipelines at Prince Rupert (20 BCAD per year suggested).

80 BCAD is approaching what Alberta makes from all its oil exports to the US.

 

[The Bread Guy]

FIRST READING: Just how far behind the world Canada has been allowed to lag on LNG

Canada just produced its first-ever export-ready LNG. Australia did that in the 1980s.

nationalpost.com

80 BCAD per annum is equivalent to 4 of Danielle Smith's Million Barrel Per Day bitumen pipelines at Prince Rupert (20 BCAD per year suggested).

80 BCAD is approaching what Alberta makes from all its oil exports to the US.

Latest development via the G&M

More on that here https://archive.is/gsBY2

 

[brihard]

Latest development via the G&M
View attachment 94326
More on that here https://archive.is/gsBY2

It has sailed. That’s pretty cool- we’re now exporting LNG overseas outside of our own continent.

Canada's historic first cargo of LNG sets sail for buyers in Asia

A tanker carrying the first cargo of liquefied natural gas from LNG Canada set sail from B.C.'s northern coast. Find out more.

financialpost.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I signed the approval for that dock (Well actually the modification to the existing EuroCan dock). Glad to see that 1 of the 12 or so LNG projects I reviewed has come to fruition.

 

[brihard]

I signed the approval for that dock (Well actually the modification to the existing EuroCan dock). Glad to see that 1 of the 12 or so LNG projects I reviewed has come to fruition.

Any others actively in progress?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Ceder LNG and Woodfibre LNG are advancing well. But never count your chickens till they hatch. Big Oil and Gas companies are well known to walk away from sunk monies.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Canada needs a private sector pipeline proponent or we're done, but it's such an uncertain political climate no one wants to risk it ...

Canada's new pipeline proposal could 'die a slow death,' former energy secretary warns | Fox Business Video

Former Energy Secretary under Trump Dan Brouillette discusses Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's pipeline proposal, OPEC's production increase and refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[YZT580]

Canada needs a private sector pipeline proponent or we're done, but it's such an uncertain political climate no one wants to risk it ...

Canada's new pipeline proposal could 'die a slow death,' former energy secretary warns | Fox Business Video

Former Energy Secretary under Trump Dan Brouillette discusses Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney's pipeline proposal, OPEC's production increase and refilling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

www.foxbusiness.com

would you? Seriously, Carney is still going to hammer you with carbon taxes and there will still be legal battles that will delay things forever and a day. Canada does not provide a healthy investment climate.

 

[brihard]

would you? Seriously, Carney is still going to hammer you with carbon taxes and there will still be legal battles that will delay things forever and a day. Canada does not provide a healthy investment climate.

I’m sure the PM understands the headwinds. I expect he will be making sure word is quietly conveyed to industry that the federal government will be working with a newly found enthusiasm to get stuff approved and shovels in the ground. He ain’t the last guy.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Not strictly a pipe, but some intriguing (at least potential) "moving LNG" news ....
"Regulator OK's liquefied natural gas exports through Hudson Bay, pending future compliance" (CBC)

NeeStaNan and Fox Lake Cree Nation secure Federal Authorization to export LNG | BOE Report

NeeStaNan and Fox Lake Cree Nation have secured federal authorization from the Canadian Energy Regulator (CER) to export liquefied natural gas (LNG). NeeStaNan and Fox Lake Cree Nation are currently embarking on a Feasibility Study for the development of a multifunctional port, a new Port Nelson...

boereport.com

... with a bit of back story here ...

Energy transportation rights-of-way would streamline regulatory approval process, MEI study shows | Montreal Economic Institute

Energy corridors could go a long way towards restoring Canada’s attractiveness for energy transportation projects, according to a study by the Montreal Economic Institute published this morning.

www.iedm.org

First Nations in Manitoba pushing for LNG exports from Hudson’s Bay | BOE Report

NeeStaNan project would use port location selected by Canadian government more than 100 years ago By Will Gibson Building a port on Hudson’s Bay to ship natural resources harvested across Western Canada to the world has been a long-held dream of Canadian politicians, starting with Sir Wilfred...

boereport.com

... and company background here

NeeStaNan (all of us) - Nee Sta Nan (all of us)

neestanan.ca

Some graphics to explain as well:



Good luck to all involved, especially with the environmental assessments.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am struggling to see why they want to use this route over the existing one to Churchill?

 

[YZT580]

I am struggling to see why they want to use this route over the existing one to Churchill?

From what I have been told, the ground between say Thompson and Port Nelson is more conducive to construction and the water around the port is deeper

 

[GK .Dundas]

From what I have been told, the ground between say Thompson and Port Nelson is more conducive to construction and the water around the port is deeper

It and I suspect that if they'd finished it as originally planned prior to the Great War. The only time we'd being hearing about Churchill would involve Polar Bears.

 

[Czech_pivo]

From what I have been told, the ground between say Thompson and Port Nelson is more conducive to construction and the water around the port is deeper

If this Port gets built, won’t it effectively kill Churchill then?

 

[brihard]

A new LNG facility wouldn’t replace an existing bulk cargo terminal.

 

[YZT580]

If this Port gets built, won’t it effectively kill Churchill then?

If you are installing a pipeline, would you really need the rail link as well? Cost wise it would probably be cheaper to transport the building materials by rail to Churchill and barge it down. Spend the rail money on twinning or at least installing enough laybys to make for an efficient two way system

 

[The Bread Guy]

A new LNG facility wouldn’t replace an existing bulk cargo terminal.

So far, though, they're talking "multifunctional port" in the info-machine material, so it could be a competitor - this from the news release:

... The plans are for a large, multi-functional port with year-round operations with capacity and infrastructure to handle bulk commodities (ores, potash, grains etc.), containers and energy exports (LNG, LPG and Hydrogen). The port would be served via a new 150 km long heavy rail spur that would connect the port with Hudson Bay Rail near Gillam MB ...

 

[Kirkhill]

If you are installing a pipeline, would you really need the rail link as well? Cost wise it would probably be cheaper to transport the building materials by rail to Churchill and barge it down. Spend the rail money on twinning or at least installing enough laybys to make for an efficient two way system

The salt water, fresh water ice issue mentioned above seems interesting.

And Port Nelson is adjacent to York Factory. There may have been a reason York Factory was a preferred port of call for a few centuries when Fort Prince of Wales at Churchill was available for most of that time.

 

[Kirkhill]

The salt water, fresh water ice issue mentioned above seems interesting.

And Port Nelson is adjacent to York Factory. There may have been a reason York Factory was a preferred port of call for a few centuries when Fort Prince of Wales at Churchill was available for most of that time.

Just saw an article referencing something called Five Fathom Hole off York Factory. Cree canoes could meet British merchantmen offshore.