walleyes - I hope you understand that the people who have "quite a bit more knowledge" of the realities of tankers and Douglas Channel live in BC - not Alberta. You know - the same people who get a much smaller portion of the oil revenues and jobs, meanwhile shouldering the brunt of the impacts of any major tanker spill. These people have substantial more knowledge and experience with marine spills than does an oil patch toadie. Be careful with your ignorance and belligerence. These qualities do not make you "right" - and this is what is wrong with the approach by industry. Belittling legitimate critiques and concerns and shooting the messenger only confirms the lack of knowledge and lack of social capital possessed by the pro-side.
Northern Gateway APPROVED
- Thread starter IronNoggin
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
Truth huh... like this kind?
http://www.watersbiomedical.com/islands/details.html
The old hide the islands trick....
If "money houses" want any Neo-Cons elected in 2015 they will throw you under the bus.
Rumor has it that's the plan, after all the bus driver has shown his ability in that respect.
We will see how things turn out.
walleyes
Crew Member
My wife says it's Christmas and it's not nice to disturb the dim witted so I will leave it alone for now.
Will get back in touch with you guys in about 6 months or a year and we will do an update..
Just a note though, the pipeline has already been started on the Alberta side, Imperial oil, Cenovus, Husky have all started and are putting in their expansion lines to Fort Sask in order to be ready for Northern Gateway when it starts.. But what would I know, I have only been in the business for 30 years now, sit on panels planning budgets for a major producer in the country, I live 15 miles south of Imperial oils largest SAGD plant, (who by the way is the largest SAGD operator in the world) their line has just been ran about 2 miles from my land.. But hey,, a few island boys surely know more than we do eh lol.. Ignorance is bliss..
Merry Christmas all..
Will get back in touch with you guys in about 6 months or a year and we will do an update..
Just a note though, the pipeline has already been started on the Alberta side, Imperial oil, Cenovus, Husky have all started and are putting in their expansion lines to Fort Sask in order to be ready for Northern Gateway when it starts.. But what would I know, I have only been in the business for 30 years now, sit on panels planning budgets for a major producer in the country, I live 15 miles south of Imperial oils largest SAGD plant, (who by the way is the largest SAGD operator in the world) their line has just been ran about 2 miles from my land.. But hey,, a few island boys surely know more than we do eh lol.. Ignorance is bliss..
Merry Christmas all..
You're as sharp as a bowling ball....
Dennis.t
Active Member
The feeder lines are being constructed in anticipation of increased pipeline capacity that the Northern Gateway Project will provide. Just a matter of time before it gets built...
GLG
Well-Known Member
Harper government gave oil and pipeline companies $400M to go green
Or is it to "go green washing"
http://www.canada.com/technology/Ha...eline+companies+400M+green/9315941/story.html
December 23, 2013
OTTAWA – Canadian taxpayers have given more than $400 million to some large oil, gas and pipeline companies in recent years to support green projects that are also boosting the industry’s environmental credentials.
An analysis of federal accounting records by Postmedia News shows that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has offered these subsidies to money-making companies such as Shell Canada, Suncor, Husky Energy and Enbridge to pursue projects in biofuels production and wind energy as well as new technology to capture carbon pollution and bury it underground.
About $1.4 million in federal government climate change spending has also benefited state-owned oil companies in Mexico (PEMEX) and China (the China National Petroleum Corporation) for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Canada said the international funding, part of the government’s global climate change commitment, didn’t directly fund companies, but went through “industry partners with technical expertise” to help Mexico, Colombia and China reduce heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere.
Suncor was one of the top recipients of federal funding from Natural Resources Canada with nearly $134 million in subsidies since 2007 for biofuels production ($117 million) and wind energy ($16.6 million) projects.
“The subsidies made these projects more attractive for all developers of new, emerging technology, including Suncor,” wrote Suncor spokeswoman Sneh Seetal in an email to Postmedia News.
In some of its recent marketing campaigns, Suncor has featured images of its wind energy projects, promoting its environmental credentials, without making reference to the subsidies it receives from taxpayers.
Natural Resources Canada’s biofuels and renewable power programs, which are being wound down by the Harper government, were meant to offer billions of dollars in incentives to producers, starting in 2007. They have generated a popular response from a variety of energy companies of different sizes and stimulated industrial growth. For example, Natural Resources Canada estimates that local biofuels production grew to over 1.88 billion litres of ethanol and 575 million litres of biodiesel in 2012, up from about 200 million litres of ethanol and no commercial biodiesel plants in 2005.
But department spokeswoman Jacinthe Perras said the biofuels program has been redesigned and will only spend $1 billion out of an original budget of $1.5 billion. While it continues to provide subsidies until 2017, she said the government announced in February 2013 that it would no longer accept new applicants.
Shell Canada also defended its own subsidy of $120 million, noting that it was in support of its Quest carbon capture and storage project that would require the company – which said it paid more than $400 million in 2012 for income taxes and royalties to the federal and provincial governments – to share its technical expertise with other companies. The project was also expected to be one of the first of its kind, capturing heat-trapping pollution equivalent to the emissions generated by 175,000 North American vehicles in a year.
“If you look globally I think you’ll find governments around the world are making similar investments to help make CCS happen,” said Shell Canada spokesman David Williams.
Enbridge, which received about $22.8 million for wind energy projects, noted that it and other energy companies received the incentives based on the amount of power produced over a ten year period. But spokesman Graham White also noted that the company, known for its pipelines and gas distribution services, has continued to build new wind projects – after the federal government stopped accepting new applicants for the funding – in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, where it would have the largest facility in Western Canada.
Husky Energy received about $103 million in federal subsidies for biofuels and another $20.5 million from Natural Resources Canada to help one of its plants in Saskatchewan reduce pollution and enhance oil recovery, but noted that the economics of producing ethanol were challenging.
“Our ethanol operations are a small part of our overall business,” said spokesman Mel Duvall. “The federal and provincial subsidies are coming to an end and our focus is on doing what we can to improve the efficiencies of the plants and to develop new revenue streams so they remain viable.”
The financial records of Natural Resources Canada also show that Imperial Oil received about $150,500 from the federal government in 2009 to do research on biodiesel.
Putting the numbers in context, Natural Resources Canada spent about $60 million over three years, starting in 2007, to help British Columbia companies and communities cope with the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation which attacked forests in the western province and spread due to climate change and warmer winters.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based think tank that researches sustainable development issues, said that the biofuels subsidies might have helped encourage local production, but that they weren’t as effective at reducing pollution as other programs such as incentives for renovations to lower energy consumption in homes and office buildings.
“Strictly from a greenhouse gas reduction perspective, there are better uses for this money,” said Ben Thibault, a renewable energy policy analyst at the think tank.
Subsidies by the numbers
Suncor: $134 million in support of biofuels production and wind energy projects.
2012-13: $27,720,000 for biofuels and $2,932,650 for wind power
2011-12: $34,692,697 for biofuels and $3,094,956 for wind power
2010-11: $17,425,577 for biofuels and $2,890,500 for wind power
2009-10: $23,139,735 for biofuels and $2,879,794 for wind power
2008-09: $13,763,071 for biofuels and $3,086,500 for wind power
2007-2008: $1,674,451 for wind power
Shell Canada: $120 million in support of Quest project to capture carbon pollution and bury it underground
2011-12: $45 million for Quest project from federal “Clean Energy Fund”
2010-11: $51 million for Quest project
2009-2010: $24 million for Quest project
Husky Energy: $124 million in support of biofuels production and ethanol plant.
2012-2013: $17,297,426 for biofuels
2011-12: $19,614,038 for biofuels and $1,103,831 for upgrades to ethanol plant in Saskatchewan
2010-11:$19,410,209 for biofuels and $12,299,538 for plant
2009-10: $30,443,632 for biofuels and $714,189 for plant
2008-09: $16,530,189 for biofuels
Enbridge: $23 million in support of wind energy projects.
2012-13: $6,264,382 for wind power
2011-12: $5,991,448 for wind power
2010-11: $5,577,308 for wind power
2009-10: $4,659,753 for wind power
2008-09: $287,266 for wind power
Imperial Oil: $150500 for study on biodiesel in 2008-09
International: $1.4 million in funding from Environment Canada to reduce pollution from oil and gas companies, including operations by state-owned oil companies in China and Mexico, as part of international climate change commitments.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Yup these companies need our tax money to keep those poor folks working.
Mix a little green wash with your pipe dreams and tar sands.
I wonder who the "dim witted" are now?
Merry Xmas there Walleyes and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Or is it to "go green washing"
http://www.canada.com/technology/Ha...eline+companies+400M+green/9315941/story.html
December 23, 2013
OTTAWA – Canadian taxpayers have given more than $400 million to some large oil, gas and pipeline companies in recent years to support green projects that are also boosting the industry’s environmental credentials.
An analysis of federal accounting records by Postmedia News shows that Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government has offered these subsidies to money-making companies such as Shell Canada, Suncor, Husky Energy and Enbridge to pursue projects in biofuels production and wind energy as well as new technology to capture carbon pollution and bury it underground.
About $1.4 million in federal government climate change spending has also benefited state-owned oil companies in Mexico (PEMEX) and China (the China National Petroleum Corporation) for projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environment Canada said the international funding, part of the government’s global climate change commitment, didn’t directly fund companies, but went through “industry partners with technical expertise” to help Mexico, Colombia and China reduce heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere.
Suncor was one of the top recipients of federal funding from Natural Resources Canada with nearly $134 million in subsidies since 2007 for biofuels production ($117 million) and wind energy ($16.6 million) projects.
“The subsidies made these projects more attractive for all developers of new, emerging technology, including Suncor,” wrote Suncor spokeswoman Sneh Seetal in an email to Postmedia News.
In some of its recent marketing campaigns, Suncor has featured images of its wind energy projects, promoting its environmental credentials, without making reference to the subsidies it receives from taxpayers.
Natural Resources Canada’s biofuels and renewable power programs, which are being wound down by the Harper government, were meant to offer billions of dollars in incentives to producers, starting in 2007. They have generated a popular response from a variety of energy companies of different sizes and stimulated industrial growth. For example, Natural Resources Canada estimates that local biofuels production grew to over 1.88 billion litres of ethanol and 575 million litres of biodiesel in 2012, up from about 200 million litres of ethanol and no commercial biodiesel plants in 2005.
But department spokeswoman Jacinthe Perras said the biofuels program has been redesigned and will only spend $1 billion out of an original budget of $1.5 billion. While it continues to provide subsidies until 2017, she said the government announced in February 2013 that it would no longer accept new applicants.
Shell Canada also defended its own subsidy of $120 million, noting that it was in support of its Quest carbon capture and storage project that would require the company – which said it paid more than $400 million in 2012 for income taxes and royalties to the federal and provincial governments – to share its technical expertise with other companies. The project was also expected to be one of the first of its kind, capturing heat-trapping pollution equivalent to the emissions generated by 175,000 North American vehicles in a year.
“If you look globally I think you’ll find governments around the world are making similar investments to help make CCS happen,” said Shell Canada spokesman David Williams.
Enbridge, which received about $22.8 million for wind energy projects, noted that it and other energy companies received the incentives based on the amount of power produced over a ten year period. But spokesman Graham White also noted that the company, known for its pipelines and gas distribution services, has continued to build new wind projects – after the federal government stopped accepting new applicants for the funding – in Ontario, Quebec and Alberta, where it would have the largest facility in Western Canada.
Husky Energy received about $103 million in federal subsidies for biofuels and another $20.5 million from Natural Resources Canada to help one of its plants in Saskatchewan reduce pollution and enhance oil recovery, but noted that the economics of producing ethanol were challenging.
“Our ethanol operations are a small part of our overall business,” said spokesman Mel Duvall. “The federal and provincial subsidies are coming to an end and our focus is on doing what we can to improve the efficiencies of the plants and to develop new revenue streams so they remain viable.”
The financial records of Natural Resources Canada also show that Imperial Oil received about $150,500 from the federal government in 2009 to do research on biodiesel.
Putting the numbers in context, Natural Resources Canada spent about $60 million over three years, starting in 2007, to help British Columbia companies and communities cope with the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation which attacked forests in the western province and spread due to climate change and warmer winters.
The Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based think tank that researches sustainable development issues, said that the biofuels subsidies might have helped encourage local production, but that they weren’t as effective at reducing pollution as other programs such as incentives for renovations to lower energy consumption in homes and office buildings.
“Strictly from a greenhouse gas reduction perspective, there are better uses for this money,” said Ben Thibault, a renewable energy policy analyst at the think tank.
Subsidies by the numbers
Suncor: $134 million in support of biofuels production and wind energy projects.
2012-13: $27,720,000 for biofuels and $2,932,650 for wind power
2011-12: $34,692,697 for biofuels and $3,094,956 for wind power
2010-11: $17,425,577 for biofuels and $2,890,500 for wind power
2009-10: $23,139,735 for biofuels and $2,879,794 for wind power
2008-09: $13,763,071 for biofuels and $3,086,500 for wind power
2007-2008: $1,674,451 for wind power
Shell Canada: $120 million in support of Quest project to capture carbon pollution and bury it underground
2011-12: $45 million for Quest project from federal “Clean Energy Fund”
2010-11: $51 million for Quest project
2009-2010: $24 million for Quest project
Husky Energy: $124 million in support of biofuels production and ethanol plant.
2012-2013: $17,297,426 for biofuels
2011-12: $19,614,038 for biofuels and $1,103,831 for upgrades to ethanol plant in Saskatchewan
2010-11:$19,410,209 for biofuels and $12,299,538 for plant
2009-10: $30,443,632 for biofuels and $714,189 for plant
2008-09: $16,530,189 for biofuels
Enbridge: $23 million in support of wind energy projects.
2012-13: $6,264,382 for wind power
2011-12: $5,991,448 for wind power
2010-11: $5,577,308 for wind power
2009-10: $4,659,753 for wind power
2008-09: $287,266 for wind power
Imperial Oil: $150500 for study on biodiesel in 2008-09
International: $1.4 million in funding from Environment Canada to reduce pollution from oil and gas companies, including operations by state-owned oil companies in China and Mexico, as part of international climate change commitments.
© Copyright (c) Postmedia News
Yup these companies need our tax money to keep those poor folks working.
Mix a little green wash with your pipe dreams and tar sands.
I wonder who the "dim witted" are now?
Merry Xmas there Walleyes and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Yes and you live in the land of bliss if you think folks don't recognize you as a troll. This post is so obviously offensive, I question if it isn't a child like attempt to stir the pot against the pipeline? Relax buddy, the opposition is there!
Last edited by a moderator:
JAC
Well-Known Member
Well said!!
The pipe lines is not the greatest but its what happened's when they put it on ships, thats what worrys me. For one they don't even know what happens when you spill this **** in the water. Then were going to ship this stuff probably with a foreign shipping company all they way to Asia where they can make money with it. To me this seems like a Hugh risk for all of us with little gain.. The risk gets bigger and bigger depending on your age, stats prove there will be a leak or spill one day.
cohochinook
Well-Known Member
This video is definitely worth watching! It points out that prior to 2008 Harper was telling the public that tarsands bitumen should refined in Alberta keeping jobs and Canada and moving us closer self sufficiency. It makes no sense to give our resources a fraction of the value and see little or no benefit to our country.
As much as BCer's like our environment I think we need to show people the true economics of this project to get the masses on board for a true opposition. I think videos like the one above can help to accomplish this.
A Hydrographic Services/Coast Guard V/L named the Otter Point was performing side-scan sonar work to update the charts for tankers back then even - on the proposed tanker route. This potential catastrophe has been in the works for a while.
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Soxy, I don't think Aqua is "anguishing" about it. The point is thousands of BC citizens who recognise the impending catastrophe are talking about it, communicating, and organising to prevent it.
The Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built. And part of the reason will be belligerent and arrogant oil proponents like Walleyes who will continue to sneer and denigrate the legitimate and important concerns of those who live in BC and who have a much bigger view of the economics of BC and Canada, and who understand the fact we live in and depend upon our environment, starting with water and air.
So keep going Walleyes, and keep posting away. You are the best rallying point we in BC could have with your complete dismissal of 1196 opponents of the project that spoke at the JRB hearing, including a couple of sea captains who know all about the terrible ocean conditions experienced in Hecate Strait. Not to mention the First Nations representatives who spoke and who understand the local ecosystems through thousands of years of occupancy.
By your vitriolic, aggressive and disrespectful posts Walleyes, you are the perfect depiction of the destructive enemy of BC we know is out there. And in that ironic way, the best friend we could have!
The Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built. And part of the reason will be belligerent and arrogant oil proponents like Walleyes who will continue to sneer and denigrate the legitimate and important concerns of those who live in BC and who have a much bigger view of the economics of BC and Canada, and who understand the fact we live in and depend upon our environment, starting with water and air.
So keep going Walleyes, and keep posting away. You are the best rallying point we in BC could have with your complete dismissal of 1196 opponents of the project that spoke at the JRB hearing, including a couple of sea captains who know all about the terrible ocean conditions experienced in Hecate Strait. Not to mention the First Nations representatives who spoke and who understand the local ecosystems through thousands of years of occupancy.
By your vitriolic, aggressive and disrespectful posts Walleyes, you are the perfect depiction of the destructive enemy of BC we know is out there. And in that ironic way, the best friend we could have!
ANOTHER excellent post Englishman!
I wish I was as sure as you are that it will never be built. I know this will become one of the defining moments in Western Canadian History, however. The already considerable opposition will increase. I think the government wants to get this done before the next election. I doubt if that will happen, as legal challenges are sure to happen and slow the seemingly relentless, unstoppable project dictated from on high. I bet if you checked Stephen Harper's and Joe Oliver's wives portfolios (or maybe even their own) - they would contain Chinese oil stock options. That decision about Enbridge was made ~2007 or earlier. The rest of the process has been window-dressing to make it appear that there has been an adequate environmental assessment that had an equal chance of a "no" decision, as a "yes" one.
All the considerable potential environmental risks aside for the moment - taking a non-renewable, limited resource and delivering to a foreign nation for processing and the associated jobs in that sector - is worse than short-sighted. It's criminal - treasonous even. Criminals (as yet uncaught and untried) are making the decisions about resource and financial management in Canada and altering laws so that they benefit and we loose.
I never thought that it would ever get this bad. That's what people said after Hitler was in power after a while. We are in an epic, all-out war against corruption, collusion, intimidation, and propaganda. Seig Heil Harper!
soxy
Member
"I never thought that it would ever get this bad. That's what people said after Hitler was in power after a while. We are in an epic, all-out war against corruption, collusion, intimidation, and propaganda. Seig Heil Harper! "
LOL......I would call that anguish, Englishman. Of the hysterical kind.
LOL......I would call that anguish, Englishman. Of the hysterical kind.
"The Northern Gateway pipeline will never be built. And part of the reason will be belligerent and arrogant oil proponents like Walleyes who will continue to sneer and denigrate the legitimate and important concerns of those who live in BC and who have a much bigger view of the economics of BC and Canada, and who understand the fact we live in and depend upon our environment, starting with water and air."
Oh, and you don't depend on GAS and OIL?
Where does it come from?
Try getting from one end of the Island to the other on wind/solar power, then, condemn Alberta's contribution to Canada.
How do you power your boat? Used French Fry oil?
I TOTALLY oppose the Northern Gateway, but like it or not, the oil needs to be shipped somewhere.
Perhaps East, or South into the States. Everyone depends on it, but no-one wants to see it piped through their areas.
Alberta, should have more refineries of their own, that would at least end the heavy oil pipeline debates.
Once it is refined into all the associated products (Varsol, Diesel, Gas, Heating Oil, Plastic, etc...), then Alberta could decide who gets it!
I just completed 6 weeks at Cenovus, Christina Lake SAGD, the daily average production, was 128,000 barrels of heavy oil a day!
It has to be shipped somewhere, Cenovus only has so many storage tanks, as does Enbridge. All the oil companies are building tanks on an ongoing basis, but there isn't enough to keep up with the production.
As far as checking portfolio's, if you have any mutual funds, you can bet you also have a significant amount invested in the oil sands. Perhaps in Enbridge even!
Again, I OPPOSE the Northern Gateway, but realistically, it will probably be built, oil money buys a lot of lobbyists', politicians and, yes, even First Nations!
Oh, and you don't depend on GAS and OIL?
Where does it come from?
Try getting from one end of the Island to the other on wind/solar power, then, condemn Alberta's contribution to Canada.
How do you power your boat? Used French Fry oil?
I TOTALLY oppose the Northern Gateway, but like it or not, the oil needs to be shipped somewhere.
Perhaps East, or South into the States. Everyone depends on it, but no-one wants to see it piped through their areas.
Alberta, should have more refineries of their own, that would at least end the heavy oil pipeline debates.
Once it is refined into all the associated products (Varsol, Diesel, Gas, Heating Oil, Plastic, etc...), then Alberta could decide who gets it!
I just completed 6 weeks at Cenovus, Christina Lake SAGD, the daily average production, was 128,000 barrels of heavy oil a day!
It has to be shipped somewhere, Cenovus only has so many storage tanks, as does Enbridge. All the oil companies are building tanks on an ongoing basis, but there isn't enough to keep up with the production.
As far as checking portfolio's, if you have any mutual funds, you can bet you also have a significant amount invested in the oil sands. Perhaps in Enbridge even!
Again, I OPPOSE the Northern Gateway, but realistically, it will probably be built, oil money buys a lot of lobbyists', politicians and, yes, even First Nations!
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
The way I read the available literature, it's not so much a thumbs up or a thumbs down on whether or not Alberta continues to be a net bitumen producer-- it's more a question of what is the best use of the resource---
Northern Gateway (Option No. 1) seems to be the most rudimentary approach---a sloppy, rushed processes ---get the condensate in, get the drilbit out with zero value added considerations. The payoff----Alberta maximize short-term profits as a bottom-tier resource extractor but at the same time, becomes a net importer of foreign condensate and in so doing, loses control over their own business model ---how can you predict long term profitability of your drilbit when you've become a slave to the vicissitudes of the foreign condensate market place? Like it or not, you're still a net importer of your petrochemicals
In this scenario, British Columbia becomes Alberta's bottom-tier resource facilitator --- basically, a host for many miles of pipelines (that may or may not leak), as well as the host of their tanker port (for a fleet of foreign-flag tankers that once loaded with the dribit and bound for foreign discharge ports, may or may not cause an ecological catastrophic event while hauling the drilbit to somebody else's value adding facility).
Option No. 1 is of course choice number one for Big Oil because it cuts to the chase---gets the bitumen out of storage, generates instant cash flow, and at the same time, provides a market for huge inventories of condensate that have been building up in Texas. Alberta gets cash, Alberta moves inventory, Alberta gets to pound its chest about all the jobs they're creating.
Choice No. 2: focus on the long term-- either invest in internal infrastructure to keep the refining capabilities domestic (in Alberta) -or build a pipeline that heads east (Eastward Gateway?)---to the Canadian maritime refineries for the value-added process.
Choice No. 3: leave the oil in the sand.
I would wager that Choice No. 3 isn't going to happen.
As to whether we'll see Option No. 1 or Option No. 2:
I'm not quite as sure as some of the other posters on this thread that Option No. 1 is a done deal.
I think that if Option No. 1 ultimately dies a natural death, it'll be because the business model suffers when placed under the magnifying glass of rigorous economic analysis.
Yes, the environmental risk is huge, but being a bottom-tier resource extractor has been shown time and time again to be a short-term business model that breeds long-term regrets in short order
Northern Gateway (Option No. 1) seems to be the most rudimentary approach---a sloppy, rushed processes ---get the condensate in, get the drilbit out with zero value added considerations. The payoff----Alberta maximize short-term profits as a bottom-tier resource extractor but at the same time, becomes a net importer of foreign condensate and in so doing, loses control over their own business model ---how can you predict long term profitability of your drilbit when you've become a slave to the vicissitudes of the foreign condensate market place? Like it or not, you're still a net importer of your petrochemicals
In this scenario, British Columbia becomes Alberta's bottom-tier resource facilitator --- basically, a host for many miles of pipelines (that may or may not leak), as well as the host of their tanker port (for a fleet of foreign-flag tankers that once loaded with the dribit and bound for foreign discharge ports, may or may not cause an ecological catastrophic event while hauling the drilbit to somebody else's value adding facility).
Option No. 1 is of course choice number one for Big Oil because it cuts to the chase---gets the bitumen out of storage, generates instant cash flow, and at the same time, provides a market for huge inventories of condensate that have been building up in Texas. Alberta gets cash, Alberta moves inventory, Alberta gets to pound its chest about all the jobs they're creating.
Choice No. 2: focus on the long term-- either invest in internal infrastructure to keep the refining capabilities domestic (in Alberta) -or build a pipeline that heads east (Eastward Gateway?)---to the Canadian maritime refineries for the value-added process.
Choice No. 3: leave the oil in the sand.
I would wager that Choice No. 3 isn't going to happen.
As to whether we'll see Option No. 1 or Option No. 2:
I'm not quite as sure as some of the other posters on this thread that Option No. 1 is a done deal.
I think that if Option No. 1 ultimately dies a natural death, it'll be because the business model suffers when placed under the magnifying glass of rigorous economic analysis.
Yes, the environmental risk is huge, but being a bottom-tier resource extractor has been shown time and time again to be a short-term business model that breeds long-term regrets in short order
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
