• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Pipelines

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date

Andrew Leach, an energy and environmental economist at the University of Alberta, said changes in the natural gas market give a new northern pipeline “zero chance” of being economically viable moving forward.

“It’s all gas markets,” he said in an interview. “If you go back to when the project was proposed, we were expecting to be an LNG (liquefied natural gas) importer. In 2006 or 2007, we had natural gas prices that were double digits, and people were expecting that we would be the highest-priced gas market in the world.”

“So, at that point, you’re hunting for anything that would allow for cheaper natural gas. I read that if you had $9 natural gas in Alberta, you could make that project work. Right now, we’re at $3 or $4 natural gas in Alberta, and at some points last year we had $2 gas, so I just don’t think it makes that list.”

The Mackenzie Valley pipeline was predicated on getting Beaufort Sea Gas to Alberta for furtherance to the US.

Worth Zero dollars in the Beaufort it could be sold for 9 to 10 dollars in the Alberta market.
Now the Alberta Market is only worth 2 to 4 dollars.

But

The price in Japan is 10 to 12 dollars.

Maybe the pipeline needs to built to move product from Alberta to Tuktoyaktuk instead of the other way round.
 



The Mackenzie Valley pipeline was predicated on getting Beaufort Sea Gas to Alberta for furtherance to the US.

Worth Zero dollars in the Beaufort it could be sold for 9 to 10 dollars in the Alberta market.
Now the Alberta Market is only worth 2 to 4 dollars.

But

The price in Japan is 10 to 12 dollars.

Maybe the pipeline needs to built to move product from Alberta to Tuktoyaktuk instead of the other way round.
Price in Europe has been even higher.

And with the EU stating that they are committing themselves to be off Russian Nat Gas, that market is ours to lose.....
 
Those two Algoma oil tankers cost Irvinegand Algoma jointly 127 MCAD for the pair. Built in S Korea by Hyundai and chartered to Irving.


LNG tankers, with all their pressure vessels, refrigeration systems and insulation are much more expensive.

Ice strengthening doesn't seem to add prohibitively to the cost of a vessel.
 
Market?


I wonder how much of that is going to be Alberta gas.
 
Market?


I wonder how much of that is going to be Alberta gas.

O Nothing GIF
 
Egypt looking for LNG


Indonesia looking for LNG


S Korea looking for LNG


Japan looking for LNG


EU looking for LNG


....

Australian supply tightening

 

Despite the hype, currently, there is comparatively little LNG (from Alberta or elsewhere) being produced by Canada.

It will take about 10 years to get 'up and running' in a way that can compete with other countries who've been producing it for decades.

These guys say 'big wins by 2028', but alot of the media hype is targeting the investment community. The usual political realities are the big unknown quantity here, especially in BC...

 
Despite the hype, currently, there is comparatively little LNG (from Alberta or elsewhere) being produced by Canada.

It will take about 10 years to get 'up and running' in a way that can compete with other countries who've been producing it for decades.

These guys say 'big wins by 2028', but alot of the media hype is targeting the investment community. The usual political realities are the big unknown quantity here, especially in BC...


The big issue is that there is already tidewater access for Canadian natural gas. Unfortunately it is all through the US. The fastest way to make more money is to sell more gas into that system at higher prices...and encourage growth of our domestic network to multiple ports for conversion to both LNG and CNG.

That could require a combination of carrots and sticks... better regulations and better dealmaking. First is a sense that Canada wants to develop its resources and profit from them. That has been absent for 10 years.

If we want higher prices from the Americans we can offer more future opportunity.
 
Egypt looking for LNG


Indonesia looking for LNG


S Korea looking for LNG


Japan looking for LNG


EU looking for LNG


....

Australian supply tightening

The EU holds the best outcome - population of 450m who are our friends and want to be rid of Russia.
The reality is that Canada has the worlds largest confirmed NG supplies and we need to get off our asses and start to make some serious coin off of this.
The Norwegians have made hand over fist buckets of oil money and they are a ‘green’ country. We can have our cake and eat it to.
 
The EU holds the best outcome - population of 450m who are our friends and want to be rid of Russia.
The reality is that Canada has the worlds largest confirmed NG supplies and we need to get off our asses and start to make some serious coin off of this.
The Norwegians have made hand over fist buckets of oil money and they are a ‘green’ country. We can have our cake and eat it to.

Canada could indeed. But Canadian voters need to elect a government that will actually do this and not the opposite. I don't only blame the voters, there is a strong corrupt media force that influences electoral outcomes. Who wins the information war is who wins in the end.
 
Canada could indeed. But Canadian voters need to elect a government that will actually do this and not the opposite. I don't only blame the voters, there is a strong corrupt media force that influences electoral outcomes. Who wins the information war is who wins in the end.
Too true! The EPA has changed their endangerment finding re: CO2 which serves to negate all the constraints on fossil fuels in the states. You might think that this was newsworthy. The original ruling certainly was yet there is nary a word mentioned on Global although climate change shows up at least a dozen times in the last couple of days: all warnings of catastrophe by the way.
 
Too true! The EPA has changed their endangerment finding re: CO2 which serves to negate all the constraints on fossil fuels in the states. You might think that this was newsworthy. The original ruling certainly was yet there is nary a word mentioned on Global although climate change shows up at least a dozen times in the last couple of days: all warnings of catastrophe by the way.

This is how you know it's not about "climate change" but rather some other interest... probably money.
 
Too true! The EPA has changed their endangerment finding re: CO2 which serves to negate all the constraints on fossil fuels in the states. You might think that this was newsworthy. The original ruling certainly was yet there is nary a word mentioned on Global although climate change shows up at least a dozen times in the last couple of days: all warnings of catastrophe by the way.

Missed that one entirely. Excellent catch.

 
Back
Top