Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[QV]

Parliamentarians affirm importance of Line 5 pipeline for Canada and U.S.; call for urgent executive action to keep Line 5 operating

markets.businessinsider.com

For folks in Ontario and Quebec, you better hope Line 5 isn’t shut down. But after all, pipelines are bad so maybe we’ll all be better off.

Mod edit to improve title

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Not only Ontario and Quebec. If Witmer shuts down Line 5, she deprives her own state of Michigan as well, for things like propane and gasoline.

 

[Brad Sallows]

No worries. Obstructionism only kicks in with the first barrel surplus to one's own needs.

 

[Good2Golf]

If Enbridge Line 5 were the only option to ship NG East it would be problematic. Here, TCPL will make more money shipping more NG through CML (the North route through Nipigon and North Bay). It’s not operating at capacity.

 

[daftandbarmy]

If Enbridge Line 5 were the only option to ship NG East it would be problematic. Here, TCPL will make more money shipping more NG through CML (the North route through Nipigon and North Bay). It’s not operating at capacity.

Our new 'pipeline' might look like a railway:

CN Rail swoops in on rival CP with higher offer for Kansas City Southern​

The bid would be a 20% premium to CP's $25 billion deal reached last month

Canada’s two biggest railroads are vying for a rail network that links their country with the U.S. and Mexico as a reworked trade alliance gets underway and the economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic gathers steam. Kansas City Southern’s sprawling system connects farms in the U.S. Midwest to ports along the Gulf of Mexico. It also reaches deep into Mexico, which made up almost half of the Kansas City, Missouri-based company’s revenue last year.

CN Rail swoops in on rival CP with higher offer for Kansas City Southern

The bid would be a 20% premium to CP's $25 billion deal reached last month

financialpost.com

 

[Loachman]

Much as I am a rail fan, that is neither the most economical, efficient, or safe way to move oil.

A lot more tank cars would have to be built and paid for, and loading/unloading facilities built, before such an operation could start.

 

[QV]

Federal Court of Appeal upholds Alberta right to turn-off-the-taps legislation

The decision is a victory for the province in its battle with British Columbia over so-called turn-off-the-taps legislation enacted by Alberta in 2018, at the heigh…

vancouversun.com

Looks like Alberta can "turn off the taps" if it chooses.

 

[Good2Golf]

Much as I am a rail fan, that is neither the most economical, efficient, or safe way to move oil.

A lot more tank cars would have to be built and paid for, and loading/unloading facilities built, before such an operation could start.

I generally agree with you on this, Loachman, but the diver in me looks at the underwater exposure and condition of Line 5 and think “Holy crap!” At least make it a “No anchor” zone. Yikes, one wrong flip of the anchor and a fluke could tear through the physical pipe. At least a hasty protective cage or something around a line carrying 1/2 million barrels/day!

 

[Loachman]

Perhaps, but trains derail and sometimes large fireballs result.

Regardless, a switch to rail would be neither cheap nor quick.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I generally agree with you on this, Loachman, but the diver in me looks at the underwater exposure and condition of Line 5 and think “Holy crap!” At least make it a “No anchor” zone. Yikes, one wrong flip of the anchor and a fluke could tear through the physical pipe. At least a hasty protective cage or something around a line carrying 1/2 million barrels/day!

So, Enbridge is currently paying for pilots on all vessels transiting the straits of Mackinaw. Nobody is allowed to anchor there anymore and Enbridge has further committed to tunnelling under Strait and moving the pipeline to a concrete lined tunnel by 2024, IIRC. Assuming Michigan doesn’t block that permit, too. Because climate politics are no reason to make petroleum transport safer...

 

[daftandbarmy]

Perhaps, but trains derail and sometimes large fireballs result.

Regardless, a switch to rail would be neither cheap nor quick.

What do you mean a 'switch to rail'? Oil has been transported by rail for years, and it's increasing:

Canadian Crude Oil Transportation Comparing the Safety of Pipelines and Railways

Canada has the world’s third largest proven oil reserves,3 and development of these resources has accelerated since 2009, with year-over-year production growth of 4.1 percent on average, from 3.2 million barrels in 2009 to 4.6 million barrels in 2018. 4 Historically, most of this oil moved by pipeline. Prior to 2012, rail moved less than 6,000 carloads (that is, filled tank cars) of fuel oil and crude oil per year (Exhibit 2).5 Beginning in 2012, however, the amount of crude oil transported by rail began to grow (as did the amount transported by pipeline), as new sources of production in Canada became available. Early growth in the use of rail for transporting crude oil can primarily be attributed to the need to connect new oil fields with refineries in certain regions where pipelines either were not present or lacked sufficient capacity.

https://www.railcan.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Canadian-Crude-Oil-Transportation-Comparing-the-Safety-of-Pipelines-and-Railways-1.pdf

 

[Good2Golf]

So, Enbridge is currently paying for pilots on all vessels transiting the straits of Mackinaw. Nobody is allowed to anchor there anymore and Enbridge has further committed to tunnelling under Strait and moving the pipeline to a concrete lined tunnel by 2024, IIRC. Assuming Michigan doesn’t block that permit, too. Because climate politics are no reason to make petroleum transport safer...

That’s very positive and shows Enbridge is clearly working to make Line 5 work while the tunnel for 2024 is pursued. Good on them. Hopefully that is taken into account in the upcoming case.

 

[Loachman]

What do you mean a 'switch to rail'?

The oil in question is being moved by pipeline.

To move it by rail would require loading and unloading facilities and enough appropriate tank cars to move enough oil in a timely manner. They have to be built and financed. The existing rail lines have to be able to absorb extra trains and may or may not require upgrading to do so. The vast majority of the North American rail network is single-track for cost reasons. Additional passing sidings may have to be built, and/or others lengthened to be able to accommodate additional traffic. Additional locomotives would be required, but different railways have different peak and lull periods and frequently lend locomotives back-and-forth plus there are leasing companies.

Thanks for the document. It was a good comparison - not as much of a difference as I expected on the safety side, but it did not address relative costs.

And, on the safety side, it only takes one Lac Megantic...

 

[Good2Golf]

And, on the safety side, it only takes one Lac Megantic...

Does it, though?

Where are the new pipelines going through Quebec?

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it feasible to use rail to connect pipelines? Rather than using rail to make the long hauls is it a possibility to use rail to jump weak nodes in the network and transport hydrocarbons from one under-utilized line to another?

I was thinking about this during the XL debates. Some of that line is already in the ground. The US State Department seems to only have jurisdiction over oil crossing the international borders. Could the oil be transported by pipeline from Hardesty to a railhead on the Canadian side of the border, shipped by rail across the border and then trans-shipped again into the existing pipelines in the States? Keep the rail segment as short as possible.

Maybe something similar for Michigan and Quebec? If nothing else it would give them a port at which they could impose their blackmail, I mean taxes.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is it feasible to use rail to connect pipelines? Rather than using rail to make the long hauls is it a possibility to use rail to jump weak nodes in the network and transport hydrocarbons from one under-utilized line to another?

I was thinking about this during the XL debates. Some of that line is already in the ground. The US State Department seems to only have jurisdiction over oil crossing the international borders. Could the oil be transported by pipeline from Hardesty to a railhead on the Canadian side of the border, shipped by rail across the border and then trans-shipped again into the existing pipelines in the States? Keep the rail segment as short as possible.

Maybe something similar for Michigan and Quebec? If nothing else it would give them a port at which they could impose their blackmail, I mean taxes.

As you probably know better than I, when you talk to the people in the industries involved they make it all work somehow, anyways, already using a variety of 'modes and nodes', all generally done under the thoughtful scrutiny of the engineers and cost accountants.

It's just cheaper and more reliable, in general, if you can slam it in one mode at source. For oil and gas products, and especially for our landlocked petro-products, pipelines are generally the best option all round, especially if you're competing with a global marketplace that has actors in it like the Persian Gulf States where the oil and gas are only a stone's throw (literally in some cases) from navigable, tidal water.

 

[Loachman]

Does it, though?

Where are the new pipelines going through Quebec?

Through any downtown areas?

That whole line was re-laid to skirt the town. That's not possible/practicable in most cases.

 

[Loachman]

Is it feasible to use rail to connect pipelines? Rather than using rail to make the long hauls is it a possibility to use rail to jump weak nodes in the network and transport hydrocarbons from one under-utilized line to another?

I was thinking about this during the XL debates. Some of that line is already in the ground. The US State Department seems to only have jurisdiction over oil crossing the international borders. Could the oil be transported by pipeline from Hardesty to a railhead on the Canadian side of the border, shipped by rail across the border and then trans-shipped again into the existing pipelines in the States? Keep the rail segment as short as possible.

Maybe something similar for Michigan and Quebec? If nothing else it would give them a port at which they could impose their blackmail, I mean taxes.

It's feasible, but every transloading operation increases the risk of some incident even though such would be unlikely and minor. It's already a dangerous line of work, and I knew one locomotive engineer who was crushed to death (and not quickly, either) several years ago.

It still involves the time and expense that I laid out above.

I'm not sure when Witmer is up for re-election, but she's not exactly popular in her state right now and a recall effort was being made. I've not followed that one, though, so do not know how it is progressing. Steven Crowder has been mulling about running against her.

 

[Kirkhill]

As you probably know better than I, when you talk to the people in the industries involved they make it all work somehow, anyways, already using a variety of 'modes and nodes', all generally done under the thoughtful scrutiny of the engineers and cost accountants.

It's just cheaper and more reliable, in general, if you can slam it in one mode at source. For oil and gas products, and especially for our landlocked petro-products, pipelines are generally the best option all round, especially if you're competing with a global marketplace that has actors in it like the Persian Gulf States where the oil and gas are only a stone's throw (literally in some cases) from navigable, tidal water.

Nodes and modes indeed. Why logistics companies get the big bucks.

What is the difference between delivering a strike package and a load of oil? Those invisible bubbles you try to avoid are governments instead of air defence zones.

The good news is that trade flows like water, always seeking the path of least resistance. As long as there is a demand there will be a supply.

I am looking forward to the switch to the Hydrogen economy. The Alberta can manufacture Hydrogen from Natural Gas and ship that to you. We will also be able to charge you for the CO2 produced as a by-product. You'll need that for your green-houses.

 

[Kirkhill]

It's feasible, but every transloading operation increases the risk of some incident even though such would be unlikely and minor. It's already a dangerous line of work, and I knew one locomotive engineer who was crushed to death (and not quickly, either) several years ago.

It still involves the time and expense that I laid out above.

I'm not sure when Witmer is up for re-election, but she's not exactly popular in her state right now and a recall effort was being made. I've not followed that one, though, so do not know how it is progressing. Steven Crowder has been mulling about running against her.

Agreed on Wittmer - I have a buddy down in Michigan (not Detroit) and he is definitely no fan of hers.

Also agreed on the time and expense, but as I suggested to D&B, the real world doesn't always supply the perfect solution so work-arounds are the norm.

I still can't wrap my head around North American LNG being delivered by sea to Europe being cost competitive with Russian NG delivered by pipeline. But apparently it is...