• 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
Are you referring to just federal policies? Because provincial uncertainty plays heavily in this as well, most of our biggest oil companies for example are involved with the calgary chamber of commerce. Majority of them see separation talk as not good and would pull out if it happens. Most are curtailing investment as a result. This is more damaging then any federal policy.
I have not seen anything in regards to talk of separation causing issues with investment. In fact it is a bit of the opposite.
What I keep hearing over and over again is uncertainty of what the carbon pricing program is going to cost along with other federal and provincial hoops one must jump through. The feds have caused to much uncertainty for investment on some large infrastructure and add in the Native/ environmental aspect it makes it to volatile for private investment in cross border/ international boarder projects.

Seeing what is going on in the Peace River area and north Eastern BC It makes one wonder.
 
I have not seen anything in regards to talk of separation causing issues with investment. In fact it is a bit of the opposite.
Calgary Chamber of Commerce member survey and study

"19 per cent of member respondents report slowing business expansion plans within Alberta"
"A decline of investment from uncertainty on the scale seen after Brexit would mean $10 to $15 billion in foregone investment in 2026 — as much as $3,000 per Albertan."
 
I have not seen anything in regards to talk of separation causing issues with investment. In fact it is a bit of the opposite.
What I keep hearing over and over again is uncertainty of what the carbon pricing program is going to cost along with other federal and provincial hoops one must jump through. The feds have caused to much uncertainty for investment on some large infrastructure and add in the Native/ environmental aspect it makes it to volatile for private investment in cross border/ international boarder projects.

Seeing what is going on in the Peace River area and north Eastern BC It makes one wonder.
NE BC and the Peace Region though is all covered by Treaty 8 so at least it's a more even playing field. Also a long history of integrated operations/commerce/families. So you often get a different feel up there than west of Mackenzie.

Heck some of those NE BC bands have recognized interests in Alberta projects due to the provinces coming after the treaty.
 
PM Carney has released another one of his ‘forward guidance’ videos, this one specifically on the energy sector. It’s very interesting. 17 minutes or so. Typing as I go:

He very specifically gives a nod to Albertan objections to the National Energy Program, phrased as he was living in Alberta at the time.

He touches on the history of hydroelectric in Ontario and Quebec and even evokes Quebec’s ‘Maitres chez nous’ (masters of. our own home) approach to hydroelectric. He also talks about energy as something that should be unifying Canada.

He’s explicitly supportive of Canada’s conventional energy sector. “Nobody knows how long the global economy will rely on conventional energy, but while it does, as much of that energy as possible should come from Canada”.

He’s explicitly highlighting how expanding our oil markets outside of the U.S. will improve prices and options.

He noted our numerous LNG projects, and how Canadian LNG will help build resilience in foreign partners.

He turns to electricity costs and broader economic electrification. “We need affordable home grown energy, and a lot of it”. He reiterates the previous announced National Electricity Strategy and Nuclear Energy Strategy, and plans to double the power grid.

He talks about reforming permitting and approvals.

He turns back to oil and gas, that reopening flow through the Strait of Hormuz is easy, but rebuilding supply trust will be hard, and that Canada’s ideally positioned to take advantage of this.

He speaks to the world as it is now, not in 2015, and that events have surpassed Canada’s climate strategy. Climate change is still a crisis, but the previous approaches don’t suit the times. “We can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix, oil and gas, to meet a short term goal”. He explicitly says emissions will be higher over the next few years, and links this back to affordability and our need to work with partners to better diversify our economic relationships.

 
PM Carney has released another one of his ‘forward guidance’ videos, this one specifically on the energy sector. It’s very interesting. 17 minutes or so. Typing as I go:

He very specifically gives a nod to Albertan objections to the National Energy Program, phrased as he was living in Alberta at the time.

He touches on the history of hydroelectric in Ontario and Quebec and even evokes Quebec’s ‘Maitres chez nous’ (masters of. our own home) approach to hydroelectric. He also talks about energy as something that should be unifying Canada.

He’s explicitly supportive of Canada’s conventional energy sector. “Nobody knows how long the global economy will rely on conventional energy, but while it does, as much of that energy as possible should come from Canada”.

He’s explicitly highlighting how expanding our oil markets outside of the U.S. will improve prices and options.

He noted our numerous LNG projects, and how Canadian LNG will help build resilience in foreign partners.

He turns to electricity costs and broader economic electrification. “We need affordable home grown energy, and a lot of it”. He reiterates the previous announced National Electricity Strategy and Nuclear Energy Strategy, and plans to double the power grid.

He talks about reforming permitting and approvals.

He turns back to oil and gas, that reopening flow through the Strait of Hormuz is easy, but rebuilding supply trust will be hard, and that Canada’s ideally positioned to take advantage of this.

He speaks to the world as it is now, not in 2015, and that events have surpassed Canada’s climate strategy. Climate change is still a crisis, but the previous approaches don’t suit the times. “We can’t afford to restrain the growth of an important part of our energy mix, oil and gas, to meet a short term goal”. He explicitly says emissions will be higher over the next few years, and links this back to affordability and our need to work with partners to better diversify our economic relationships.

Fantastic. I just need a dollar for a cup of coffee now. Until he starts cancelling legislation designed to keep oil in the ground his words aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. As Altair affirmed no company is going to build a new pipeline, government will have to and have set ourselves up to fail.
 
Fantastic. I just need a dollar for a cup of coffee now. Until he starts cancelling legislation designed to keep oil in the ground his words aren't worth the powder to blow them to hell. As Altair affirmed no company is going to build a new pipeline, government will have to and have set ourselves up to fail.
If that’s all you took out of that, ok. There was a fair bit of pretty powerful political messaging in this one, a lot more than you’re apparently grasping.

If Alberta chooses to drive the financing of a new pipeline west, I see no reason to think that’s not likely to succeed. Likely once they have that security in place there will be other partners sign up.

A new pipeline specifically to the west coast is not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector; this is a case where the national interest and trade redundancy necessitate supporting a not-optimal (from a pure economic standpoint) option. In those cases some government involvement is basically inevitable. The pure private industry solution would simply be to build straight south into the U.S. the interests of private industry and the larger interests of Canada are partly misaligned there.

Once work is moving, risk decreases and the return on investment becomes more assured, Government of Alberta will likely be able to divest partially or fully.
 
If that’s all you took out of that, ok. There was a fair bit of pretty powerful political messaging in this one, a lot more than you’re apparently grasping.

If Alberta chooses to drive the financing of a new pipeline west, I see no reason to think that’s not likely to succeed. Likely once they have that security in place there will be other partners sign up.

A new pipeline specifically to the west coast is not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector; this is a case where the national interest and trade redundancy necessitate supporting a not-optimal (from a pure economic standpoint) option. In those cases some government involvement is basically inevitable. The pure private industry solution would simply be to build straight south into the U.S. the interests of private industry and the larger interests of Canada are partly misaligned there.

Once work is moving, risk decreases and the return on investment becomes more assured, Government of Alberta will likely be able to divest partially or fully.
Transmountain says hi.
 
Calgary Chamber of Commerce member survey and study

"19 per cent of member respondents report slowing business expansion plans within Alberta"
"A decline of investment from uncertainty on the scale seen after Brexit would mean $10 to $15 billion in foregone investment in 2026 — as much as $3,000 per Albertan."
What other minor and major factors are contributing to those slowing business plans? Were they slowing prior to all the separation talk or started after? Calgary has had a rough go since 2009/2010 with Oil collapse but has made enormous strides in the Tech industry.
 
Transmountain says hi.
Yes, but a bad example because Transmountain as a private ventured failed midway in large part because of bad federal policy. It wasn’t a lack of basic economic viability.

In this instance we’re talking about government as a founder of the project, not a janitor cleaning up their own mess.
 
Yes, but a bad example because Transmountain as a private ventured failed midway in large part because of bad federal policy. It wasn’t a lack of basic economic viability.

In this instance we’re talking about government as a founder of the project, not a janitor cleaning up their own mess.
I hope to be proved otherwise, but I think the fact transmountain hasn't been offloaded shows that private industry isn't interested in pipelines other than using it.

Like most infrastructure in Canada, private industry is "you pay,we use"
 
If that’s all you took out of that, ok. There was a fair bit of pretty powerful political messaging in this one, a lot more than you’re apparently grasping.

If Alberta chooses to drive the financing of a new pipeline west, I see no reason to think that’s not likely to succeed. Likely once they have that security in place there will be other partners sign up.

A new pipeline specifically to the west coast is not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector;
What are you talking about?
Building a pipeline to ship oil is a good investment. Because companies have a product that needs to be shipped to a client. How to do that efficiently is through pipelines.
What is not efficient is dealing with Canadian bureaucracy. The on again off again process is what has made any pipeline in Canada "not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector"
Remember before the cancellation of the Transmountain pipeline in 2017 by TC energy the project had private funding and a private builder/ owner.
It took three governments, BC, AB and Federal Government to force the cancelation of a private project that was fully funded, to a public project that cost 7 plus times more as they swooped in and saved the day.

I guess your right if I earmarked $5billion for a project and due to the seasonal change of government regulations and feelings final project cost would be 7 plus times more and many years past the planned in service date. Your correct that would not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector

One has to wonder why companies up in the Peace Region are investing in localized pipelines and large production infrastructure. Not one of them is touching the pipeline to the coast, why?
this is a case where the national interest and trade redundancy necessitate supporting a not-optimal (from a pure economic standpoint) option. In those cases some government involvement is basically inevitable. The pure private industry solution would simply be to build straight south into the U.S. the interests of private industry and the larger interests of Canada are partly misaligned there.

Once work is moving, risk decreases and the return on investment becomes more assured, Government of Alberta will likely be able to divest partially or fully.
Once the government at all the levels actually approves the pipeline with no sideline changes on the whim of interest groups then and only then may a private company step in. But only if the costs are reasonable, from what we have seen with government involvement with industry usually the costs go up, profits go down and bailouts are the norm.
Sorry the Canadian Western Oil and Gas sector does not want to be a industry like Bombardier, IMP, Irving to name three who rely largely on government funding to stay in business. The industry out here does not want handouts they want approvals and certainty.
 
If that’s all you took out of that, ok. There was a fair bit of pretty powerful political messaging in this one, a lot more than you’re apparently grasping.

If Alberta chooses to drive the financing of a new pipeline west, I see no reason to think that’s not likely to succeed. Likely once they have that security in place there will be other partners sign up.

A new pipeline specifically to the west coast is not the most efficient allocation of capital in the oil sector; this is a case where the national interest and trade redundancy necessitate supporting a not-optimal (from a pure economic standpoint) option. In those cases some government involvement is basically inevitable. The pure private industry solution would simply be to build straight south into the U.S. the interests of private industry and the larger interests of Canada are partly misaligned there.

Once work is moving, risk decreases and the return on investment becomes more assured, Government of Alberta will likely be able to divest partially or fully.
for a substantial reduction in price per barrel, yes, I fully agree. They don't have to do the carbon capture thing for that and they get the oil at a discount to use either domestically or sell off-shore at a significant markup thus balancing out the extra they have to pay for carbon costs. They win, we lose with a southern pipeline unless we make it advantageous for them to ship it either west or east.
 
Back
Top