$30 barrel oil?

[HiTempguy1]

https://business.financialpost.com/o...s-how-they-can

Good article, and is one of the few times I am behind the gov stepping in. It is our resource, we have a say in its development.

[dj_patm]

ill repost

[J-hop]

Wondering what’s going on with this recent plan to buy new rail cars, thought I saw some discussion in one of these threads, does CP even have the capacity? I imagine additional tanker cars is only a small part of the battle?

[dirtsniffer]

KXL would be able to handle 500,000 bbl/day of crude

Cenovus just inked a deal to transport 100,000 bbl/day on trains. Which is roughly 150 rail cars per day.

Obviously you need several weeks worth of cars to meet the daily demand.

Let's say it's 2 weeks to do a round trip which could be conservative. At that rate it would take 2100 train cars to fulfill Cenovus' 100,000 bbl/day requirement.

So very roughly, for every 1000 train cars the province buys it increases export capacity by 50,000 bbl/day.

Obviously this assumes there is enough engines and whatever else to make it work. And the trains run very efficiently compared to my experience, but at this scale it may be the case.

https://altex-energy.com/economics-o...rsus-pipeline/
Interesting article on rail vs pipeline for heavy oil

https://business.financialpost.com/c...thin-weeks/amp

Apparently Notley announced that they are buying enough cars to move 120,000 bbl/day

[J-hop]

At what point do you run up against the cp line capacity though? I imagine there are tons of restrictions on that?

[90_Shelby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wondering what’s going on with this recent plan to buy new rail cars, thought I saw some discussion in one of these threads, does CP even have the capacity? I imagine additional tanker cars is only a small part of the battle?

See article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/not...deau-1.4923976

I was wondering the same thing, if we buy two unit trains, it as simple as tossing them on the tracks owned by the largest monopolies in the country? I haven’t heard anything from CP or CN and how this would be accommodated. I do appreciate the effort that Notley appears to be putting in, we would be in much worse shape if our NDP government was more like their federal or B.C. counterparts.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

See article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/not...deau-1.4923976

I was wondering the same thing, if we buy two unit trains, it as simple as tossing them on the tracks owned by the largest monopolies in the country? I haven’t heard anything from CP or CN and how this would be accommodated. I do appreciate the effort that Notley appears to be putting in, we would be in much worse shape if our NDP government was more like their federal or B.C. counterparts.

Yea I saw that article, kind of breezed through it but it didn’t seem to contain much from the CP/CN side of things. Someone was telling me they heard that CP wasn’t fully on board as it could infringe on lumber transport contracts among others. I don’t know if there is any truth to that and I can’t find any article talking about that

[ercchry]

At what volume of rail traffic does Calgary’s traffic come to a 24/7 standstill?

[phreezee]

Great summary of the issue and the damage that the Liberals have created: https://www.facebook.com/ShannonLake...3455029291428/

Sad that Kent Hehr represents any part of Calgary.

[Maxt]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Great summary of the issue and the damage that the Liberals have created: https://www.facebook.com/ShannonLake...3455029291428/

Sad that Kent Hehr represents any part of Calgary.

Is that Trans Peter Griffin standing next to the speaker?

[spikerS]

A bit of a read, but lays things out pretty well.

My belief in the importance of Canada-headquartered companies goes back to the early 1970s when, as a young engineer, I joined the Canadian subsidiary of a Nebraska-based oil and gas company. While I was treated well and given substantial responsibility, I yearned to work for a company where the decisions were made in Calgary, not Omaha. That opportunity came with a new startup called the Alberta Energy Company. I joined AEC to head the building of the oil and gas division.

The company grew quickly. But five years later, the entire oil and gas industry was struck a huge blow by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s National Energy Program that capped oil prices below world levels and slapped a confiscatory tax on the gross revenues of energy companies. Canada-headquartered companies were supposed to benefit from cash grants, provided we shifted our drilling to federally owned lands. But most of those lands were in the Arctic where drilling costs were prohibitive and access to pipelines non-existent. After the Mulroney Conservatives killed the Trudeau policies in 1985, AEC got back to the job of company building.

Not long after I became the company’s CEO in 1994, American takeovers of Canadian oil and gas companies began accelerating. Having grown AEC into one of the two local energy companies with the largest market value, rivalled only by PanCanadian Petroleum (a member the venerable Canadian Pacific group), we managed to avoid that fate. But market intelligence revealed we were on the radar screen of the big global multinational majors, the only players with the capacity to take us out. We knew that the best defence was to become an even larger, nationally important energy company. On Jan. 28, 2002, Alberta Energy and PanCanadian announced a $27 billion “merger of equals” that would create the world’s largest publicly traded independent oil and gas producer.

Given my career-long belief in the importance of Canadian-controlled companies, it was important that the name of our new company symbolize its status as Canada’s flagship energy company. Hence the name Encana — from the words “Energy Canada.”

Our merger announcement set off a two-month regulatory period for gaining shareholder approval. During those two months, both companies would be, in stock market lexicon, “in play” and vulnerable to takeover attempts from one of the global majors.

Meanwhile, then-Prime Minister Jean Chrétien’s government was facing criticism for the continuing loss of Canadian head offices to foreign takeovers. Without the merger, there was a very real possibility that both of Canada’s largest energy companies could fall into foreign hands. We urgently needed the federal government’s help to keep that from happening. Hence, when David O’Brien and I embarked on our mission to convince shareholders to vote for the deal, our first stop was the prime minister’s office.

I could never have imagined that, a dozen years later, the company would decide to export itself


The result was an unprecedented statement in the House of Commons by the minister of natural resources that the creation of EnCana was in the national interest. Then-Finance Minister Paul Martin also made strongly supportive comments a few days later. These statements were critical to repelling potential takeover attempts that would have derailed our merger.

Employees of the two companies united in our mission of “energy for people.” When I retired four years later, Encana was our country’s largest energy company and also the largest of all Canadian companies by stock market value. My dream of building a Canada-headquartered energy company, invulnerable to takeover, had become a reality.

I could never have imagined that, a dozen years later, the company would decide to export itself.

Over the past three years, Encana has shifted much of its multi-billon-dollar capital program to the United States. Then last May, Encana CEO Doug Suttles moved from Calgary to Denver. This month came news of Encana’s $7.7 billion acquisition of U.S. producer Newfield Exploration. That will mean that Encana’s largest production region will now be the United States, not in Canada.

Reluctant to state that stark reality in so many words, Encana’s CEO has instead said the company will now be “headquarterless.” But with half its board of directors, 60 per cent of its production and the vast majority of its capital program south of the border, it’s impossible to deny that Canada’s flagship energy company has now become Americanized.

The past few years have been a nightmare for the Canadian industry, where every light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be train driven by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barrelling at us from the opposite direction


Disappointed as I am by this turn of events, I cannot blame Suttles. He and his board have a responsibility to invest shareholder capital where production can be delivered and sold at international prices. The day of the Newfield announcement, Canadian oil was selling at US$19.10 a barrel, while prices were US$63.10 in Texas. Canada’s captive-market discount gives away $200 million a day as a gift to American buyers.

The past few years have been a nightmare for the Canadian industry, where every light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be train driven by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barrelling at us from the opposite direction. His oil tanker ban in northern B.C. and his refusal to allow a pipeline in the Great Bear Rainforest killed Northern Gateway. And his introduction of a post-regulatory hearing requirement to consider “upstream emissions” forced TransCanada to abandon its nation-building Energy East Pipeline that would have replaced foreign oil. Meanwhile, hundreds of tankers carrying oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries make their way up the St. Lawrence without any such emissions reviews.

That left the now-stymied Trans Mountain expansion as the only hope of getting Canadian oil to tidewater. As if this weren’t enough to deter investment in Canada’s oil and gas industry, Bill C-69, the so-called Impact Assessment Act, now before the Senate, will make the chances of accomplishing resource infrastructure projects seem near impossible to investors. And then there are carbon taxes that will hit the industry particularly hard. These are the disastrous actions that are killing what has long been Canada’s most economically important industry.

The story of Encana’s creation and rise features the important actions of one Liberal government, many decades ago, that, whatever its other mistakes, at least believed in the importance of a strong domestic oil and gas industry. And now the sad story of Encana’s Americanization features the actions of another Liberal government that is ideologically opposed to the industry’s very existence.

Gwyn Morgan is the retired founding CEO of Encana Corp.

Taken from the Financial Post - https://business.financialpost.com/o...hUuN5ePucjlBqE

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://business.financialpost.com/o...s-how-they-can

Good article, and is one of the few times I am behind the gov stepping in. It is our resource, we have a say in its development.

The more I see about this stuff, the more I find it hard to believe some big oil exec whose bonus relies on company profits, hasn't just financed some mercenaries to go do a bit of a terrorist mission in the middle east to blow up some main OPEC pipelines. Sounds like some conspiracy movie plot, but the huge drop in supply would surely boost prices until they got back up running again.

[Type_S1]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The more I see about this stuff, the more I find it hard to believe some big oil exec whose bonus relies on company profits, hasn't just financed some mercenaries to go do a bit of a terrorist mission in the middle east to blow up some main OPEC pipelines. Sounds like some conspiracy movie plot, but the huge drop in supply would surely boost prices until they got back up running again.

I would argue the opposite - the US’s oil infrastructure is not protected at all so they may send people over. Google images of Cushing that’s an hour out of OKC...you can drive right up to it and all that’s separating you and the facilities is a fence in most places.

[HiTempguy1]

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...a-37e84649954c

Buying rail cars is not the answer. Fuck Nutley is a retard.

[Brent.ff]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...a-37e84649954c

Buying rail cars is not the answer. Fuck Nutley is a retard.

What would you have her do? Half the companies don't want to be forced to limit production, while the other half do... She's in a brutal spot, at least she's trying something.

Also, amazing that people who hate the NDP, are all for the government stepping in and limiting market forces..

[Buster]

They aren't market forces

[sabad66]

I think it's a good idea. Sucks that the new trains won't be in operation until late 19 or whatever but better late than never. We need to do something to get proper value for our resources.

Feds are retarded for not joining in on this...would be easy PR for them.

[J-hop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I think it's a good idea. Sucks that the new trains won't be in operation until late 19 or whatever but better late than never. We need to do something to get proper value for our resources.

Feds are retarded for not joining in on this...would be easy PR for them.

It’s a more complex debate than it’s made out to be I personally think. Is this just a short term band aid? Is it diverting funds away from real long term solutions (pipeline)? With transport by rail being extremely dangerous in comparison to pipeline and the shitstorm that surrounds accidents is it actually a good PR move at the federal level?

I don’t think it’s as simple as we think

I am personally torn, do I want to see us working towards alleviating the problem? Yes
Do I think transporting via rail is an even remotely intelligent thing to do (in general)? Absolutely not

[ickyflex]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It’s a more complex debate than it’s made out to be I personally think. Is this just a short term band aid? Is it diverting funds away from real long term solutions (pipeline)? With transport by rail being extremely dangerous in comparison to pipeline and the shitstorm that surrounds accidents is it actually a good PR move at the federal level?

I don’t think it’s as simple as we think

Liberals don't need any Oil Approval because it's not going to get them any votes anyways. They are best just pretending we don't exist

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What would you have her do? Half the companies don't want to be forced to limit production, while the other half do... She's in a brutal spot, at least she's trying something.

Also, amazing that people who hate the NDP, are all for the government stepping in and limiting market forces..

The best thing to do is shoot the PM in the head and force the pipeline through. But "democracy".