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

Pipelines, energy and natural resources

  • Thread starter Thread starter QV
  • Start date Start date
Do you remember when Germany came knocking asking Trudeau for Natural Gas and Trudeau offered them Hydrogen at some point in the future because there was no business case for Natural Gas?

....

That hasn't completely stopped some people from working to make hydrogen


8 tonnes of Hydrogen per day in phase 1
20 Megawatts
Looking to produce 350 MW eventually

Expensive

Uses wind generated electricity to separate hydrogen from sea water and store it.
 
Flare gas for remote power...

Some of this has also been incorperated into more modern gas plants built. A little known but additional power grid relief.

However most plants don't have this technology and this is the first mobile unit design I've heard of.
 
And the hits just keep on coming for Eby.
To help Algoma Steel Carney has slapped a 25% tariff on the Chinese towers Eby was relying on for wind turbines to fill his energy gap.
Coal for wind....


Nice wind power projects you've got there... it would be a shame if anything happened to them.

But if you agree to our new pipeline, I could take care of those tariffs for you ;)

The Sopranos Television GIF
 
Fascinating factoid from this National Post article

The first pipeline proposal from the oil sands to Churchill was in 1870.

"When, in 1870, Canada acquired the vast Rupert’s Land wilderness, the Geological Survey of Canada (GSC) mapped the region’s resources. Geologist Robert Bell, judged that the immensity of the oilsands deposits warranted access to foreign markets via a pipeline to Hudson Bay and “further shipment ‘by steamers.’ ” Only 150 years later, the Carney government announced that an energy corridor to Churchill, Man., “could be truly transformative for this country,” but requires “further development.”"

....

" knowledge of the Alberta oilsands stretches back to the earliest periods of European exploration and Indigenous contact. Gray notes that in 1719, “Wa-pa-su, a Cree Indian working for the (Hudson’s Bay) company” met trader Henry Kelsey at Fort York. He brought with him “a lump of the oil-saturated sand described as ‘that gum or pitch that flows out of the banks of (the Athabasca) River.’”"

So, in 1719 a Cree trader delivered bitumen to the HBC. Bitumen that "flowed out of the Banks of (the Athabaska) River". Does that suggest that the River was polluted then? Or was the bitumen natural and part of the environment?


 


And this in particular


 
Euro demand and cold weather driving the price of Natural Gas in the US up. Cheap coal is back in fashion.


5 USD per MMBTU = 7 CAD per GJ in the US
Alberta price is 0.72 to 3.36 CAD per GJ
 
Meanwhile, Team Blue seems to want to put everyone's vote on the record, so to speak, on the CAN-AB pipeline deal:
Here's the motion from PP's x.com feed:
View attachment 97104
Interesting - trying to flush out the better-green-than-Carney Team Red members?

Boosters'll say it's good to make things more official, and should be an easy-peasy vote - Red Coach says deal's on, so it should be a rubber stamp.

Haters'll say if Team Blue might be using this to fuel (further?) dissent within Team Red, fuelling the "partisan politics over the good of the country" narrative.

We'll have to see ....
The latest …
 
The latest …
Meh. The motion is meaningless. Some people are keen to make hay with it without bothering to distinguish between the legislature, which has no present role in this, and the executive. Even though both overlap in the cabinet, the support of Parliament on a motion really has no bearing on decisions that will be a cabinet issue.
 
Meh. The motion is meaningless. Some people are keen to make hay with it without bothering to distinguish between the legislature, which has no present role in this, and the executive. Even though both overlap in the cabinet, the support of Parliament on a motion really has no bearing on decisions that will be a cabinet issue.
Even the amended version (to add some of the AB responsibilities) was meaningless as it still was deliberately lopsided not to hold AB to account for its transactional commitments to the Feds. To then hear PP try to explain it as though it was meant to see which Liberal MPs wouldn’t/didn't support the LPC caucus line is pretty lame.
 
Even the amended version (to add some of the AB responsibilities) was meaningless as it still was deliberately lopsided not to hold AB to account for its transactional commitments to the Feds. To then hear PP try to explain it as though it was meant to see which Liberal MPs wouldn’t/didn't support the LPC caucus line is pretty lame.
We’re in a lengthy period of “make theatrical opposition noises” for the foreseeable future.
 
Back
Top