Energy East pipeline not a boon for refineries: Report


mentalfloss
#1
Energy East pipeline boon for refineries an ‘empty promise’ because most oil will go overseas: Report

CALGARY — The proposed Energy East pipeline won’t be the boon to Eastern Canadian refineries that supporters claim because the vast majority of the oil in it would be bound for export markets, environmental groups argue in a report being released Tuesday.

The $12-billion project would likely use the lion’s share of its 1.1 million barrel per day capacity to send unrefined oilsands crude to markets like India, Europe and possibly the United States, says the report, penned by The Council of Canadians, Ecology Action Centre, Environmental Defence and Equiterre.

The pipeline would run 4,600 kilometres from Alberta to Saint John, N.B., using repurposed pipe already in the ground for roughly two thirds of the way.

The company planning to build it, TransCanada Corp., aims to file a formal regulatory application this summer. It’s been actively engaging with communities along the route in an effort to build support.

Backers in industry and government have said Energy East will help ailing refineries in the East — reliant on high-cost crude from abroad — by connecting them with a stable, low-cost supply from Western Canada. The proposal also includes export terminals in Quebec and Saint John, N.B., from which some of oil can be sent overseas by tanker, getting producers a better price for their crude.

But Tuesday’s report says the three refineries along the Energy East route — Suncor Energy’s in Montreal, Valero’s near Quebec City and Irving’s in Saint John, — have a combined capacity of 672,000 barrels per day.

Of that, the groups figure 550,000 barrels per day can come from elsewhere — offshore crude in Atlantic Canada, booming U.S. shale resources and, eventually, via Enbridge Inc.’s recently approved reversed Line 9 pipeline between southwestern Ontario and Montreal. That leaves just 122,000 barrels per day of refining capacity that can be served by Energy East, the report says.

“It’s very frustrating to watch a company trying to convince Canadians that they should accept these massive risks based on some perceived benefit that they may receive. When you dig into it, you find that it’s an empty promise,” said Adam Scott, with Environmental Defence.

“It’s just not true that Eastern Canada’s going to benefit in the way that TransCanada’s saying they are. And when you look and see that this is a project about putting vast quantities of oil onto tankers and shipping them out of the country, people who are convinced that ’this is going to mean more local jobs for me’ are going to be very disappointed.”

Energy East pipeline boon for refineries an ‘empty promise’ because most oil will go overseas: Report | Financial Post
 
Locutus
#2
So if it was a boon the tree huggers would give their stamp of approval?

Anyway, boon, from where you cut the story off sir:

TransCanada has said the project’s economic benefits would be massive and has described it as a nation builder on par with the Canadian Pacific Railway.

A study TransCanada commissioned last September, conducted by Deloitte & Touche LLP, predicts the equivalent of 10,071 direct full-time equivalent jobs across the country will be needed to develop and build Energy East until 2018. Once the pipeline is up and running, Deloitte sees the creation of 1,081 direct jobs.

The study also found the project would add about $35.3 billion to Canada’s gross domestic product in the development and construction phase and over the 40-year life of the project. As well, it’s expected to add $10.2 billion in tax revenues at the municipal, provincial and federal levels the over that time.

The economic figures don’t include the impact of higher Canadian crude prices that would result from being able to sell the product in lucrative overseas markets. Nor does it incorporate the lower crude costs eastern refineries may enjoy.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#3
I care about the section through my area - a line opened October 10, 1958 and has already been made its presence known twice in 2009 and once in 1979 with whistles and booms. Oil leaks are much quieter - and probably don't get noticed by a lot of anglers, hunters and people who see fireballs.

Most of the selling point is recycling. There are supposed to be no issues in going from high pressure gas to low pressure crude oil, the massive reduction in pressure being easy on the pipe. Why would there be?.

Do they say what will be pushed through that 55 year old line, or to what temperature it is heated to remain viscous, or what sort of pressure it takes to keep it moving, or anything of changed stress, single planes or erosion of lower chords where leaks can occur.?

How deep it is buried may be a concern when, this year in Timmins, frost is being encountered at depths of nine feet. Of course, since the guck is heated, frost won't affect the line. How will the heat and defrosting affect the two gas lines that parallel this one?

The Pipeline calls it upgraded heavy oil or synthetic oil. Oil sands literature tells of processing plants near the mines. Eastern refineries, apparently, don’t have the means to do it.

Another word often used is "bitumen". It requires expensive (and dangerous) chemicals to liquify it enough to be pushed, as abrasive (or not - depending on the seller) guck through a 55-year-old pipeline for processing and disposal at the receiving end.

If bitumen can be hauled out of the hole in a dump truck, it can be loaded and shipped more safely by rail in bathtub gondolas.

Realistically, I know the stuff is going to move one way or another. Ideally, method of transfer should be of highest calibre and up-to-date. Doing things on the cheap and cutting corners leads to disaster. Given my druthers, I'd rather trust a 140-year-old train track I can see than a 55-year-old pipe I can't.

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/me...etter-pmo.html
 
petros
#4
Still trying to flog that dead horse?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#5
Wanna help write some more?
 
petros
#6
Sure, do you need help in learning about a portion of he same TCPL line that has already been converted to oil from gas some 6 or 7 years ago?
 
petros
#8
Question MF...


If this is all oil sands oil where is all the sweet and heavy conventional going to go and how?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Sure, do you need help in learning about a portion of he same TCPL line that has already been converted to oil from gas some 6 or 7 years ago?

Do you need help in learning how a 12 billion dollar second-rate project to ship oil overseas isn't quite as cost efficient as a 500 million dollar project to relay track and ship by rail?

Cost to Re Install the rails on the Chalk River Subdivision at this point

Cost of Materials per Mile:
No.2 Relay 132/136 lb rail $700 per ton 245 tons per mile = $171,500 a mile
7"x9' Ties on 21" Centers $55.22 per tie 3,017 ties per mile =$166,598.74 a mile
Spikes 68 Kegs $65.00 per keg 68 kegs -.................................................$ 4,000 per mile
Ballast (Rock) $27.00 per ton 6,000 tons required per mile = $162,000.00 a mile
$342,000 total for one mile of rail re installed. This quote is using all new materials and the amount of ballast required will vary due to there already being ballast in place.

This works out to $488,414,000 To re install the Chalk River Subdivison
(figures compiled by D. Borgford)

That line should never have been "unbuilt". Though not a part of the original CP main, it was a vital component in the glue that cemented this country from coast to coast.
Last edited by lone wolf; Mar 18th, 2014 at 12:10 PM..
 
petros
+1
#10
Materials but zero labour costs? That,s piss poor arguement without labour costs. What is the source for costing? Why don't they include labour and logistics?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+2
#11
Bill is materials. Figures were compiled by someone in stock supply - not labour management. Sure there will be labour. It won't ever add up to $12 BILLION. I'm sure even someone who claims synthetic crude comes from conventional wells would know that.

Question: Is the 40% increase in gas cost really due to supply - or to put into this stupid project?

Question: Is your reluctance to ship raw bitumen by rail in effort to preserve Alberta jobs at the expense of all else?
Last edited by lone wolf; Mar 18th, 2014 at 01:01 PM..
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#12
You haven't included annual operating costs in the calculation.

If shipping by rail was easier, faster and/or cheaper, you can bet that is the way the sector would go
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#13
...unless, of course, a certain MP from Alberta seeks to protect Alberta interests and TCP backing. Wouldn't do to lose his own seat.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#14
Are you suggesting that the Fed election will be (essentially) determined by the Alberta vote?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#15
His own seat will.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#16
Harper will not lose his seat here regardless of Energy East.

Besides, it is all but approved already, the greenie-weenies in blocking KXL ENSURED THAT ALREADY.

Ironic, isn't it?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#17
Not approved here - and not looking like it will be. It's cold and the threat of a 40% natural gas price increase isn't going to help in the least.
 
petros
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Bill is materials. Figures were compiled by someone in stock supply - not labour management. Sure there will be labour. It won't ever add up to $12 BILLION. I'm sure even someone who claims synthetic crude comes from conventional wells would know that.

Question: Is the 40% increase in gas cost really due to supply - or to put into this stupid project?

Question: Is your reluctance to ship raw bitumen by rail in effort to preserve Alberta jobs at the expense of all else?

Someone? So you have no clue if that is accurate or not which I highly doubt it is considering resurfacing a hi way is $1million per km all inclusive.

Sounds like bullsh-t to me.

Scrap steel is bought at $350 a tonne yet manufactured rail is only $700 a tonne?

You don't like paying more for imported Marcellus gas?

Yes indeed synthetic comes from conventional heavy oil but you knew that right?

You also new about the new lines built for this project right?

You'd best do some homework and find the real costs of 4100km of new rail because those numbers are waaaaaay out to lunch.

Quote:

Energy East Pipeline Project

A pipeline from West to East

Called the Energy East Pipeline, the 4,600-kilometre pipeline will carry 1.1-million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.

Currently, the project has the following major components:

Converting an existing natural gas pipeline to an oil transportation pipeline
Constructing new pipelines in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick to link up with the converted pipe
Constructing the associated facilities, pump stations and tank terminals required to move crude oil from Alberta to Québec and New Brunswick, including marine facilities that enable access to other markets by ship
While the exact route will only be determined after public and regulatory review, the planned starting point is a new tank terminal in Hardisty, Alta. Three other new terminals will be built along the pipeline’s route: One in Saskatchewan, one in the Québec City area and another in the Saint John, N.B., area. The terminals in the Québec City and Saint John areas will include facilities for marine tanker loading. The project will also deliver oil to existing Québec refineries in Montréal, near Québec City and in Saint John. New pipeline will be built in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick.

The Energy East Pipeline Project involves three major components: pipeline conversion, the construction of new pipeline and the construction of new pipeline facilities. Energy East will*convert an existing natural gas pipeline to oil service between Burstall, Saskatchewan and Cornwall, Ontario. New sections of pipe will also need to be constructed in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Eastern Ontario, Québec and New Brunswick to link up with the newly converted pipe. Lastly, associated facilities like pump stations, tank terminals and marine facilities will be constructed in order to successfully move the crude oil from Alberta to New Brunswick

Rail..... Lmfao
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Not approved here - and not looking like it will be. It's cold and the threat of a 40% natural gas price increase isn't going to help in the least.


Pipelines are the realm of the Feds... No different than highways, rail, airports, etc.
 
petros
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

His own seat will.

Wakie wakie hands off snakie, your journey through Dreamland has come to it's terminus.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#21
The "someone" is attributed - preserving anonymity. His employer may not appreciate a lot of incomplete details being cast about.

I'm sure you know the odour - yours being all over these Forums.

I suggest you sell your shares in TCP and go back to your copper mine in Ecuador ... or is it your grain fields ... or is it?....

Internet know-it-alls are never wrong....
 
petros
#22
So someone quoting bullsh-t wants to remain anonymous? I wonder why?
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Wakie wakie hands off snakie, your journey through Dreamland has come to it's terminus.

Isn't Calgary Southwest an Albertan seat? Pay attention. No Ontarian can vote there. It WILL be determined by an Alberta vote.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

So someone quoting bullsh-t wants to remain anonymous? I wonder why?

Do you see a "quote" Squidly?

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Pipelines are the realm of the Feds... No different than highways, rail, airports, etc.

Yup... They are... and where do you think the majority of voters are ... and are faced with a 40% natural gas price increase?

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post


You'd best do some homework and find the real costs of 4100km of new rail because those numbers are waaaaaay out to lunch.

Rail..... Lmfao

Where do you see anything about 4100 km of new rail? The track exists - minus a 150 km gap (the Chalk River Subdivision) It's Called Canadian Pacific. The piece of track involved is Ottawa Valley Railway - the operator of the western portion of CP's Montreal mainline.

Please be informed....
 
petros
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Isn't Calgary Southwest an Albertan seat? Pay attention. No Ontarian can vote there. It WILL be determined by an Alberta vote.



Do you see a "quote" Squidly?



Yup... They are... and where do you think the majority of voters are ... and are faced with a 40% natural gas price increase?

"Green" is why your imported from the US nat gas is going up. It's not because of the line conversion or because of ONE MP.

Considering that CDN oil production increases and the goal of exports was a Liberal idea, it sure was thoughtful of that one MP to keep the ball rolling huh?

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Isn't Calgary Southwest an Albertan seat? Pay attention. No Ontarian can vote there. It WILL be determined by an Alberta vote.



Do you see a "quote" Squidly?



Yup... They are... and where do you think the majority of voters are ... and are faced with a 40% natural gas price increase?



Where do you see anything about 4100 km of new rail? The track exists - minus a 150 km gap (the Chalk River Subdivision) It's Called Canadian Pacific. The piece of track involved is Ottawa Valley Railway - the operator of the western portion of CP's Montreal mainline.

Please be informed....

It's 4100 km from Burstall SK to New Brunswick when the new tanker terminal is to be built as part of the $12B.
Last edited by petros; Mar 18th, 2014 at 03:28 PM..
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

"Green" is why your imported from the US nat gas is going up. It's not because of the line conversion or because of ONE MP.

Considering that CDN oil production increases and the goal of exports was a Liberal idea, it sure was thoughtful of that one MP to keep the ball rolling huh?

Short supplies and high demand is what Enbridge and TCP are excusing the increase on.
 
petros
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Short supplies and high demand is what Enbridge and TCP are excusing the increase on.

From Enron to enbridge? Confused at all? It was a cold winter here too but my gas isn't going up. Why not?

Do you think it is wise for Canada to be importing 725,000 bbls a day out of the 1.6million bbls consumed daily in Canada?
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Yup... They are... and where do you think the majority of voters are ... and are faced with a 40% natural gas price increase?

That price increase is a function of the value of the commodity.

Enbridge and TCPL charge a transportation rate (regardless of the cost of an MCF). The 40% increase will also be felt here in AB as well, despite the gas maybe coming out of a field a few kilometers away
 
petros
#28
2.4% increase for 2014 here in SK.

Where is the other 37.6% coming from?

Rumour mill?
 
mentalfloss
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

From Enron to enbridge? Confused at all? It was a cold winter here too but my gas isn't going up. Why not?

Do you think it is wise for Canada to be importing 725,000 bbls a day out of the 1.6million bbls consumed daily in Canada?

Yes we already know our dependency on oil is a huge problem.

Giving more crack to a crack user doesn't really help in the long term.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

2.4% increase for 2014 here in SK.

Where is the other 37.6% coming from?

Rumour mill?


Depends on your point of reference... A few years back, an MCF was trading at a low of $1.89, recently, that price rose to roughly $6.00/MCF
 
no new posts