Encana to moves to the U.S. - more job losses for Alberta


Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#61
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Maybe, we can import LNG from overseas, instead.

Kinda on track now think export instead of import
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#62
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Don't waste your time.. Buddy still thinks that it's all up hill from West to East and that shipping by tanker 1/2 around the world is cheaper than a pipeline

Ships are safer:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...eline-or-boat/

Ships are more energy efficient:

http://setxind.com/midstream/pipelin...sport-methods/

There is no more efficient method of moving anything than on water.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#63
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Kinda on track now think export instead of import

We can't rely on the West for you to supply us.

"Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" so, for strategic reasons, we need to have more reliable suppliers.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#64
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Ships are safer:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescon...eline-or-boat/

Ships are more energy efficient:

http://setxind.com/midstream/pipelin...sport-methods/

There is no more efficient method of moving anything than on water.


Makes you wonder why the USA has a 500,000 miles of pipelines in their country.


But put simply, you're wrong based on a cost per bbl over time.


Include capital costs related to acquisition/development/construction of a pipeline vs tanker/supertanker AND incorporate operating costs, insurance and personnel against the useful life of each modality and the pipeline wins out every time.


Hell, we haven't even talked about moorage, demurrage or other costs related to entering or departing port facilities.


The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.




Do the math and you'll understand why pipeline transpo is far more cost effective
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+2
#65
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

We can't rely on the West for you to supply us.
"Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark!" so, for strategic reasons, we need to have more reliable suppliers.

We are already supplying you with NG 4 TC Energy lines 1 Enbridge line

Why are you changing the subject?
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
+2
#66
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Makes you wonder why the USA has a 500,000 miles of pipelines in their country.
But put simply, you're wrong based on a cost per bbl over time.
Include capital costs related to acquisition/development/construction of a pipeline vs tanker/supertanker AND incorporate operating costs, insurance and personnel against the useful life of each modality and the pipeline wins out every time.
Hell, we haven't even talked about moorage, demurrage or other costs related to entering or departing port facilities.
The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.
Do the math and you'll understand why pipeline transpo is far more cost effective

Makes you wonder why the Mississippi system is clogged with barges carrying oil.

Maybe, it's not that easy to move petroleum through South Dakota by ship.

Could be.


p.s. Does oil go bad in transit when it takes three weeks? What's the hurry?

Anyway, Saudi Arabia and Alberta both blackmail us but historically, the Saudis are probably more reliable.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#67
Because there is a bottleneck in Oklahoma which has eased some with the Southern leg of Keystone XL
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#68
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

Makes you wonder why the Mississippi system is clogged with barges carrying oil.

Maybe, it's not that easy to move petroleum through South Dakota by ship.

Could be.


p.s. Does oil go bad in transit when it takes three weeks? What's the hurry?

Anyway, Saudi Arabia and Alberta both blackmail us but historically, the Saudis are probably more reliable.


Yeah, it does make you wonder why there's only 275 barges each carrying 30,000 bbls, and I'm guessing that it will take a wee bit of time to barge it from North to South or East to West.


But I digress... Are you giving up on your position that ocean freighters are less costly on a per bbl basis over time?



On that note, we here in the West are in no hurry for oil, hell, it's damn near everywhere, we get it the moment we want.


PS - If you think you're being blackmailed now, just wait a wee bit and you'll really see how competitive the market is... (Hope that the winter isn't too cold, might have to throw on a sweater before ya think of adjusting the thermostat)
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#69
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Yeah, it does make you wonder why there's only 275 barges each carrying 30,000 bbls, and I'm guessing that it will take a wee bit of time to barge it from North to South or East to West.
But I digress... Are you giving up on your position that ocean freighters are less costly on a per bbl basis over time?
On that note, we here in the West are in no hurry for oil, hell, it's damn near everywhere, we get it the moment we want.
PS - If you think you're being blackmailed now, just wait a wee bit and you'll really see how competitive the market is... (Hope that the winter isn't too cold, might have to throw on a sweater before ya think of adjusting the thermostat)

We get oil from: the Saudis, Norwegians, Brits, Venezuela, Mexico, the United States, The Emirates, Nigeria, Aruba, the Maghrib ... all bought on the spot market. I'm sure that we won't be running out.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#70
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

We get oil from: the Saudis, Norwegians, Brits, Venezuela, Mexico, the United States, The Emirates, Nigeria, Aruba, the Maghrib ... all bought on the spot market. I'm sure that we won't be running out.


Perfect, then what's you problem with the West going it's own way?
 
Hoid
#71
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Makes you wonder why the USA has a 500,000 miles of pipelines in their country.


But put simply, you're wrong based on a cost per bbl over time.


Include capital costs related to acquisition/development/construction of a pipeline vs tanker/supertanker AND incorporate operating costs, insurance and personnel against the useful life of each modality and the pipeline wins out every time.


Hell, we haven't even talked about moorage, demurrage or other costs related to entering or departing port facilities.


The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.




Do the math and you'll understand why pipeline transpo is far more cost effective

super tanker cannot get in or out of the port of Vancouver
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#72
... And?
 
Hoid
#73
they are not relevant to a discussion of the trans mountain
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#74
Who's talking about the Trans Mountain?
 
Hoid
#75
You were

The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.

btw it has been poised for many years now
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#76
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You were

The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.

btw it has been poised for many years now


Oil tankers come in many sizes and to that end, many load bitumen each and every week and sail out of Burrard inlet.


... Look closely n English Bay and you'll see these tankers lined-up waiting to load
 
Hoid
#77
Vancouver handles 30-50 tankers per year

the largest tanker it can handle is 120K tonnes.

even then it can only load to 80%

no VLCCs - no ULCCs
 
Hoid
#78
^btw the above illustrates what a joke it is trying to claim that the TM expansion is being done to facilitate oil traffic to china.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#79
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

^btw the above illustrates what a joke it is trying to claim that the TM expansion is being done to facilitate oil traffic to china.

So no reason to object .
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
+1
#80
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

You were
The pipeline to the West coast has been operating for north of 50 years and currently move approx 350,000 bbls/day and poised to increase to 850,000. A super tanker might hold approx 2 million bbls and take a couple or 3 weeks to get from Saudi to East coast Canada.
btw it has been poised for many years now

The whole conversation in the last couple of pages had nothing to do with TMX, please do keep up
 
Hoid
#81
merely establishing some factual parameters within which the climate change deniers can waddle around
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#82
Why not answer PGS' question?


If the tanker traffic can't be accommodated by the Port, then why are you fighting this?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#83
Quote: Originally Posted by Hoid View Post

merely establishing some factual parameters within which the climate change deniers can waddle around

What are you nattying on about now? Trying to deflect because you were wrong?
 
Hoid
#84
Quote: Originally Posted by pgs View Post

So no reason to object .

No objection to smaller tankers shuttling oil to America?

I object to any Alberta oil coming into BC.
 
captain morgan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#85
Going to make getting around the province a tad more difficult
 

Similar Threads

7
TransCanada, Encana both announce job cuts
by mentalfloss | Jun 30th, 2015
58
Alberta moves to export water!
by cyberclark | Jan 18th, 2011
28
EnCana Skyscraper Building
by Hank C Cheyenne | Nov 3rd, 2005