Quantcast
$30 barrel oil? - Page 33 - Beyond.ca - Car Forums
Page 33 of 59 FirstFirst ... 23 32 33 34 43 ... LastLast
Results 641 to 660 of 1172

Thread: $30 barrel oil?

  1. #641
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  2. #642
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2013 Genesis Coupe
    Posts
    188
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    ill repost
    Last edited by dj_patm; 11-28-2018 at 07:17 PM.

  3. #643
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,822
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    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?
    Last edited by J-hop; 11-28-2018 at 08:05 PM.

  4. #644
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    Silverado
    Posts
    2,410
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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
    Last edited by dirtsniffer; 11-28-2018 at 08:27 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
    Im the one with a learning disability....

  5. #645
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,822
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

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

  6. #646
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    CTS-V, Trackhawk
    Posts
    939
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J-hop View Post
    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.
    I like neat cars.

  7. #647
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,822
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 90_Shelby View Post
    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

  8. #648
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    calgary.ab.ca
    My Ride
    E90M3 510 Wagon
    Posts
    7,353
    Rep Power
    24

    Default

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

  9. #649
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    1,321
    Rep Power
    16

    Default

    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.

  10. #650
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    BoostLand
    My Ride
    something green
    Posts
    1,821
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phreezee View Post
    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?
    1987 T62R 20b FC Quaife seq 6sp Motec m800
    1988 20B Peripheral port FC3S
    1994 T51r Kai BB Peripheral port FD

  11. #651
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Parked in Baygirl's garage.
    My Ride
    2019 F150 Lariat 3.5L BOOST!
    Posts
    4,142
    Rep Power
    20

    Default

    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
    Boosted life tip #329
    Girlfriends cost money
    Turbos cost money
    Both make whining noises
    Make the smart choice.

    Originally posted by Mibz
    Always a fucking awful experience seeing spikers. Extra awful when he laps me.

  12. #652
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    Leduc, Alberta
    Posts
    266
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
    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.

  13. #653
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    420
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterman View Post
    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.

  14. #654
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Red Deer, Alberta
    My Ride
    1995 WRX STi
    Posts
    1,556
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

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

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

  15. #655
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    My Ride
    '14 Taco
    Posts
    550
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HiTempguy1 View Post
    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..

  16. #656
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    GLA
    Posts
    1,764
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    They aren't market forces

  17. #657
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    My Ride
    2013 Q5
    Posts
    1,715
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    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.

  18. #658
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    calgary
    Posts
    1,822
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sabad66 View Post
    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

  19. #659
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    102
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J-hop View Post
    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

  20. #660
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    576
    Rep Power
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brent.ff View Post
    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".

Page 33 of 59 FirstFirst ... 23 32 33 34 43 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 1.8B barrel oil found in Afghanistan

    By Xtrema in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 9
    Latest Threads: 08-17-2010, 09:13 AM
  2. Why we have $150/barrel of oil...

    By Xtrema in forum Society / Law / Current Events / Politics
    Replies: 1
    Latest Threads: 06-20-2008, 03:29 AM
  3. Is $200/barrel oil around the corner?

    By trev0006 in forum Cars, Bikes, Machines
    Replies: 2
    Latest Threads: 03-12-2008, 04:23 PM
  4. Brazil announces new 5-8billion barrel light oil find...

    By Toma in forum Real Estate / Finance
    Replies: 24
    Latest Threads: 11-10-2007, 09:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •