[FoxV]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'F')ox - I think I get it now.

[C8]

Thus, step by step, Canada continues to morph into a petro-state, where govt. and oil business interests merge completely. Those Canadians who want different sources of energy, or who want CO2 reductions will find they are up against a new and powerful enemy- their own government. Given the pipeline, refinery, shipping infrastructure necessary for oil distribution, it is no wonder most oil producers are state owned companies. Oil just requires too much support not to become a government venture. The very nature of oil leads to it taking over government.

[rockdoc123]

It amazes me how the "big oil is evil" and "so is the gov't" crowd cannot think beyond conspiracy theory and look at the economics behind the decisions being made.

The Alberta gov't after many years of running a surplus is now into deficit territory. The main reason this has happened is two fold, low revenue due to decreased natural gas prices and concomitant activity and the large differential between crude being sold from Alberta (regardless of quality) versus various points in the US.

They have a number of options to solve that 1. increase provincial taxes (this may be a short term solution but long term could be counterproductive as one of the attractions of doing business in Alberta is the low tax rate). 2. increase royalties (this would not work, the last time they did this recently they lost billions of dollars in lease sale revenue and potential royalty revenue as operators went to British Columbia or Saskatchewan where royalties were lower) or instead they could do what they are proposing. They front the capital to build a pipeline to the east coast. This gives Alberta crude access to higher priced end user points thus increasing royalty revenues received. They have a couple of options here, they fund the pipeline and own it or they simply act as bankers for a third party (eg. TransCanada). If they own the pipeline then they get the advantage of tariffs from third parties in addition to the increased royalty payments, if instead they act as bankers they collect debt payments from the pipeline operator. By agreeing to take oil rather than royalties it gives them flexibility. They would nonetheless be guaranteed the current price if they decided to ship their own oil by existing infrastructure or they have the option to transport crude through the new pipeline for a higher price under whatever tariff construct is put in place.
Why is the Alberta government doing this...simply because industry has been navel gazing for 2 years around this issue and it is time to "put up or shut up". It further brings to a head the indecision sitting around regarding other options such as egress through British Columbia. Eastern Canada is interested in seeing this happen as it gives them access to crude they need and it also yields higher revenues for the Federal gov't through increased business income tax. It is win win for the gov't and industry.
As to Alberta becoming a gov't control over industry, hardly. There has been a provincial bank in place for many years Alberta Treasury Branch which was originally put in place to help needy Albertans get loans which the regular banking avenues were not providing but today is a fully integrated bank and financial institution that competes with other banks on equal footing. Alberta was also the first province to privatize liquor stores which until that time were strictly controlled by the province since prohibition (still are in Ontario I believe). The Alberta gov't also is big in the way of offering grants to small businesses regardless of whether they have anything to do with the oil and gas business or not. I know a few people who work with the provincial gov't and their mantra is "we aren't here to compete with business but rather to accommodate its needs, help it thrive at the same time as ensuring certain obligations such as environmental stewardship are met".
By the way I have to remind the Americans here that unlike the US, the Canadian companies who operate in Canada do not own the oil they produce. Ownership of resources is by the provinces. Operators have the right to explore and lift oil and gas as well as sell it where they choose but are on the hook for royalties to the province. This setup isn't really much different than most places in the world. The US is an exception, the only place I know where the company who operates actually owns the hydrocarbons they produce.

[Graeme]

TransCanada Calls Energy East Pipeline ‘Very, Very Promising’

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ransCanada Corp. (TRP), builder of the Keystone XL pipeline, may announce shortly that it will go ahead with a separate link to transport oil to Canada’s Atlantic Coast, Chief Executive Officer Russ Girling said.

Advancing Energy East, a 4,400-kilometer (2,735-mile) partial conversion of its Mainline natural gas line, looks “very, very promising,” Girling said today in an interview at Bloomberg headquarters in New York. The company finished receiving binding commitments from shippers on June 17 and is working through contractual details, he said.


The Energy East proposal involves carrying as much as 850,000 barrels a day of crude from western Canada to refineries in Montreal, Quebec, and Saint John, New Brunswick, about 400 miles northeast of Boston. The crude could then be shipped by tanker to facilities on the U.S. Eastern Seaboard and as far away as India, Girling said. The oil will predominantly be upgraded bitumen from the oil sands, a light crude, and light oil from Saskatchewan, the CEO said.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('C8', 'T')hus, step by step, Canada continues to morph into a petro-state, where govt. and oil business interests merge completely..

[Graeme]

Greenpeace, other environmental groups vow to fight west to east oil pipeline

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here's no surprise here: the announcement of a new oil pipeline was invariably going to raise the ire of environmental groups across the country.

On Thursday morning, TransCanada Corporation announced that they are moving forward on a 4,400-kilometre pipeline that could carry over 1 million barrels of crude oil per day from Alberta to refineries in Eastern Canada.

"The Energy East Pipeline project involves converting a portion of natural gas pipeline capacity in approximately 3,000 kilometres of TransCanada’s existing Canadian Mainline to crude oil service and constructing approximately 1,400 kilometres of new pipeline," notes the company's press release.

"The pipeline will transport crude oil from receipt points in Alberta and Saskatchewan to delivery points in Montréal, the Québec City region and Saint John, New Brunswick, greatly enhancing producer access to Eastern Canadian and international markets. The pipeline will terminate at Canaport in Saint John, New Brunswick where TransCanada and Irving Oil have formed a joint venture to build, own and operate a new deep water marine terminal."

Federal natural resources minister Joe Oliver has expressed support for the idea, but noted that the government "will only allow energy projects to proceed if they are proven safe for Canadians after an independent, science-based environmental and regulatory review."

Alberta Premier Alison Redford called it a "nation building project."


Environmental groups, however, are dismissing the claims of rosy economic benefits and warned of negative impacts.
"While using an existing pipeline may reduce TransCanada’s costs, it increases spill risks for the many rivers, lakes and communities along the route," Andrea Harden-Donahue, Energy Campaigner with the Council of Canadians, said in a statement.

[Graeme]

Here are two contrasting views on this pipeline. Will it get built?

The TransCanada pipeline from West to East will Contravene International Law

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here is a moral imperative to examine theTOTAL IMPACT OF tar sands, and pipelines the fossil fuel dyad; and the importance of addressing the threats, from the dyad, to climate change, to indigenous rights, to livelihood and subsistence, to, to future generations and to cultural and natural heritage. And to address the question;Does Canada really need this project?

This proposal will substantially increase the impact of the Tarsands not only on climate change but also on the lives of the communities living on or adjacent to the tar sands and the lives of communities adjacent to the pipelines.. http://youtu.be/HqNu-m4zcG4
.
1.FOSSIL FUEL DYAD
Under Article 2 of the legally binding UN Framework Convention on Climate change, states, including Canada, are to stabilize greenhouse gases below a level of dangerous anthropogenic emissions
The TransCanada will facilitate Canada’s increased non-compliance with Article 2. And Canada has already caused a significant move towards this dangerous level

2.INDIGENOUS RIGHTS
The United Nations human rights rapporteurs such as
James Anaya, and Olivier de Schutter, as well the UN Special Representative on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations, John Ruggie, have all expressed concern about the impacts, on the rights of indigenous communities, from industrial extraction of natural resources, and from large-scale energy and infrastructure development projects,

Article 26.1of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states

Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he TransCanada pipeline from West to East will Contravene International Law

[ROCKMAN]

doc - What I find constantly amazing is how some folks expect a different future based upon what they think should happen as opposed to what we actually see happening. That isn’t to say they are either right or wrong in their judgments. But they think that by making a case why something shouldn’t happen that it won’t happen. No one is going to stop the Canadians, Venezuelans or anyone else from producing their oil. No one is going to stop the US from importing oil. Policies might be enacted that may provide some motives to be more efficient but no one is going to prevent our consumers from buying every bbl they want and can afford. The fact that these activities may collectively be disastrous for the planet won’t change these dynamics IMHO. But I’m willing to reconsider my position if anyone can show me where one action has been taken that has SIGNIFICANTLY changed the course we’re on.

[Graeme]

Rock, Well, I'll tell you what is happening. Global warming. Your industry has chosen to ignore warnings offered by climate scientists decades ago. But what you can't ignore are the effects. Hope your infrastructure and your customer livelihoods can dodge climate change "bullets" each and every future year from now on. Furthermore, Canadian tar sands are expensive to extract, and residents of Quebec may not be too happy about a pipeline traversing their state especially if they know that oil prices are not going to decrease ever again.

[Graeme]

Canada's oil pipelines will not build a nation - they are a great swindle

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he defeat has been barely noticed by the media. Amidst the rolling hills of Quebec's lush farm and wine region, the small town of Dunham has beaten the oil giants.

It's here that Enbridge and Portland-Montreal Pipe Line – owned by Imperial Oil, Suncor and Shell – have been trying to construct a pumping station to pipe heavy crude over a nearby mountain range. The infrastructure is integral to Enbridge's plans to ship Alberta tar sands, via Quebec, to the eastern coast of the United States.

But when Enbridge quietly initiated this project in 2008, a coalition of local farmers, residents and environmentalists formed in opposition. They marched, launched legal challenges, and organized Canada's first UK-inspired climate camp – which ended in promises of civil disobedience.

The oil companies fought back in court. Enbridge dropped the project's initial name – "Trailbreaker" – to fool residents into thinking they had abandoned their broader plans to ship Alberta tar sands. The federal government even dispatched spies to intimidate community organizers. But ground down by Dunham's efforts, the companies withdrew last month. They still want a pumping station in Quebec – they just won't be able to build it in this town.

The triumph may herald the fate of two massive tar sands pipeline projects that loom over central and eastern Canada. The first is Enbridge's now-unnamed plan, which involves reversing a network of east-to-west pipelines that currently carry African and European oil. This would bring 300,000 barrels of Alberta tar sands daily to the US seaboard. The other is TransCanada's recently announced Energy East, a $12bn project to convert a natural gas pipeline and build an extension in the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick. It could ship as many as 1.1m barrels per day to Canada's coast.



In the face of mounting opposition, the Quebec government has promised a public consultation on the Enbridge pipeline, though not yet on TransCanada. While it will prove an opportunity for dissent, the consultation is a charade: it will determine not whether the pipeline project should proceed, but on what terms. Rarely has a nationalist Quebec premier caved in such brazen ways to the interests of oil corporations and the federal government. It leaves only one question: how long before Quebecers call for her head?

If the signs are correct, the victory over the oil barons being celebrated in Dunham, Quebec won't be the last.

[ROCKMAN]

Enbridge Inc. has posted higher second-quarter profits as new pipelines in the oil sands region of northeastern Alberta came into service and the Seaway pipeline to the U.S. Gulf Coast contributed higher earnings. And this happening while the lack of the border crossing section of Keystone XL hasn't been approved. How can that be? So many posts praising the POTUS for hindering oil sands development. BTW: latest projections are more oil sands production will be imported into the US during 2013 then during any previous year in history. Hindrance? I suppose that must be in the eyes of the beholder.

Regarding the Energy East P/L that will carry 1.1 million b/d of oil sands production to eastern refineries as well as exports overseas: TransCanada said it expects the Energy East project to proceed. Alberta and New Brunswick each said Thursday that they support the proposal. Quebec's position is unclear, and a spokesman for that province declined comment. Insiders have commented that there's not much question that Quebec won't give approval but what they'll get in return. The transport of $35 billion of oil thru the province every year allows for a significant amount of potential sharing I suppose.

[WildRose]

Just thought some of you might like to read this:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.1876996

If I read anything else about it, I'll post it.

[WildRose]

It's a Hadrosaur.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/306739- ... a/?photo=2

The area where it was found was a prehistoric lake.

[Ibon]

Cool. This far more interesting to read about than all those boring same old same old news about the relentless grinding down and depletion of our industrial civilization

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'C')ool. This far more interesting to read about than all those boring same old same old news about the relentless grinding down and depletion of our industrial civilization

[Graeme]

Alberta, B.C. closer to pipeline deal; hurdles remain

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')lberta and British Columbia have edged closer to a deal that could help clear the path for the development of new oil pipelines to connect Canada's oil sands to the Pacific coast, although many obstacles remain.

In a framework agreement announced on Tuesday, Alberta Premier Alison Redford agreed to support five conditions laid out last year by her British Columbia counterpart, Christy Clark, if that province was to support construction of oil pipelines across British Columbia's pristine north.

The premiers of the two westernmost Canadian provinces agreed Alberta would not share royalty revenue from oil production in the province and that British Columbia had the right to negotiate with the oil and gas industry for appropriate economic benefits.

The agreement removes one roadblock from Enbridge Inc's C$6 billion ($5.74 billion) Northern Gateway project, a 525,000 barrel per day pipeline from Alberta's oil sands to the port of Kitimat in B.C.

The project is a key part of efforts by the federal and Alberta governments to open up export markets to Asia at a time when congestion on pipelines taking oil to the United States means crude is getting bottlencked in Alberta.

[ROCKMAN]

"Alberta Premier Alison Redford agreed to support five conditions laid out last year by her British Columbia counterpart...". How we Texans interpret that statement: Alberta met BC's price. As has been said: money talks and bullish*t walks. And I have no doubt that if the First Nation has an opportunity to object their price will also be met.

Graeme - No doubt these developments will leave a our taste in your mouth. Not that you and I agree on many issues but I do appreciate your feelings. And I give you mucho credit for posting this article

[Graeme]

I think Canada is nervous about disapproval of Keystone XL

[rockdoc123]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '&')quot;Alberta Premier Alison Redford agreed to support five conditions laid out last year by her British Columbia counterpart...". How we Texans interpret that statement: Alberta met BC's price. As has been said: money talks and bullish*t walks. And I have no doubt that if the First Nation has an opportunity to object their price will also be met.