Pipelines, energy and natural resources

[QV]

Even with shovels in the ground, some still won't be happy.

A significant percentage of people were convinced trans mountain would not be finished, even when the federal government bought it and construction was under way.

The government through it's own doing made the original project untenable to industry. Then, after coming to Jesus moment, realizing the importance of such a project it had no choice but to now fund it to completion.

It was completed at extreme cost and time than was necessary. Trans Mountain is not a government success story, it's a cautionary tale.

 

[Brad Sallows]

TMX was poorly-executed by the federal government. We should not want a repeat. If there are pipelines to be constructed, they - and all major capital projects - should be executed by private companies disciplined by profit and loss.

The critical requirement the federal and provincial governments provide is regulatory predictability. Political risk is worse than the practical risks. Engineers can anticipate most physical contingencies; they cannot anticipate political 180s from changes of party or of party leadership. The predictability must extend for as long as needed to amortize the costs.

Regulatory predictability doesn't require infusions of public revenue to the tune of billions.

 

[MilEME09]

The government through it's own doing made the original project untenable to industry. Then, after coming to Jesus moment, realizing the importance of such a project it had no choice but to now fund it to completion.

It was completed at extreme cost and time than was necessary. Trans Mountain is not a government success story, it's a cautionary tale.

it wasn't the government that overturned an environmental assessment because the company cut corners

 

[Altair]

The government through it's own doing made the original project untenable to industry. Then, after coming to Jesus moment, realizing the importance of such a project it had no choice but to now fund it to completion.

It was completed at extreme cost and time than was necessary. Trans Mountain is not a government success story, it's a cautionary tale.

Sure. You're right.

Not the point.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I was thinking more “how long from proposal to construction” given that there’s no proposal yet and that the feds aren’t responsible for same.

So what's the point of all this ? That rhetorical by the way...

 

[brihard]

So what's the point of all this ? That rhetorical by the way...

Shrug you first said you hope Alberta holds the feds accountable despite there not yet being a tangible project and then you said it’s all theatre. I’m just trying to address the goalposts as they shift.

 

[foresterab]

given how long pipe line construction takes,

it wasn't the government that overturned an environmental assessment because the company cut corners

Considering I saw 3 major projects going on locally....TransMountain was just one of them.

All working similar terrain...frankly TransMountain was easier in many regards. Similar lengths of pipe being laid and similar sizes.

TransMountain was 3x the length of time. It's a standing joke here over how some contracts were issued and they were encouraged to delay the process as long as possible. Anything to stretch out the process and bare minimum of work. 4 guys on site and one working was common.

Others...you saw trainloads and truckloads of pipe show up in preparation...but when things started it was full steam. 24 hour operations. Every pinch point for terrain features a key sub team assigned to ensure it didn't delay the main crew. Reclamation and stabilization following days behind construction. And ironically was done at lower cost in part due to fewer "super contractors" involved and more smaller guys involved that had to big out small sections.

Government has a role in setting expectations and standards...but are not the best to be managing major projects especially when they have limited experience in that field and are constantly trying to change acceptable standard for last minute revisions based upon political statements (boring vs. trenching for example is a huge aspect of some of the cost increases).

 

[Halifax Tar]

Shrug you first said you hope Alberta holds the feds accountable despite there not yet being a tangible project and then you said it’s all theatre. I’m just trying to address the goalposts as they shift.

If I have shifted a goal post it was unintentional.

What I want: Massive resource exploitation in Canada, including more pipelines to tide water for Alberta.
What I don't want: More announcements with no action.
What I predict: They announce an MOU, Alberta rejoices, Ottawa snickers, nothing ever gets done.

 

[MilEME09]

If I have shifted a goal post it was unintentional.

What I want: Massive resource exploitation in Canada, included more pipelines to tide water for Alberta.
What I don't want: More announcements with no action.
What I predict: They announce an MOU, Alberta rejoices, Ottawa snickers, nothing ever gets done.

Devil will be in the details, the MPO and Ottawa aren't in the pipeine building business, so we still need a private investor, if one doesn't come up, this project is dead, if oil prices really are going to crash to $30 by 2027, I don't see any company wanting to build when losing money hand over fist. at $30 for WTI, WCS is likely around $28, thats taking a massive loss on Bitumen.

 

[brihard]

If I have shifted a goal post it was unintentional.

What I want: Massive resource exploitation in Canada, included more pipelines to tide water for Alberta.
What I don't want: More announcements with no action.
What I predict: They announce an MOU, Alberta rejoices, Ottawa snickers, nothing ever gets done.

I’d like to see much more aggressive resource development too. A single new pipeline to pacific tidewater will, I suspect, suffice for the foreseeable future. I’d also like to see an east-west link as strategic resource redundancy; I’d like us to be able to move oil across Canada if it’s needed. I recognize it may not be optimal cost effectiveness most of the time; I see it as a capability.

I think we’re seeing Ottawa trying to hold the door open for Alberta to put up or shut up. But, with that said…

if oil prices really are going to crash to $30 by 2027, I don't see any company wanting to build when losing money hand over fist. at $30 for WTI, WCS is likely around $28, thats taking a massive loss on Bitumen.

Yup. Fundamentally the economics will still have to be there for this to work. Alberta oil is unavoidably expensive to develop compared to many other deposits. We are still at the mercy of the intersection of demand with our supply.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think we’re seeing Ottawa trying to hold the door open for Alberta to put up or shut up. But, with that said…

That's nice to say. But going west Alberta is going to need the support of the Feds to get over BC.

Going east they look to have a more receptive political climate, but a much longer route.

The reason there are no proposals is BC, Federal Regulations and First Nations. All need the Feds to help get over this hump.

3 Bad Laws:

• West Coast tanker ban: This is a federal regulation that prohibits the transport of heavy crude oil by tankers on the northern Pacific coast of British Columbia.
• Industrial carbon pricing regime: This refers to the federal pricing system on carbon emissions for large industrial facilities.
• Emissions cap: This refers to the federal government's cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector.

 

[brihard]

Thats nice to say. But going west Alberta is going to need the support of the Feds to get over BC.

Going east they look to have a more receptive political climate, but a much longer route.

Yup, and I’m supportive of the feds reasserting federal constitutional authority over interprovincial infrastructure.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yup, and I’m supportive of the feds reasserting federal constitutional authority over interprovincial infrastructure.

So things brings us full circle.

Call me when the shovels start.