Home | Open Account | Help | 291 users online |
Member Login
Discussion
Media SharingHostingLibrarySite Info |
Canadian Railroads > Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and gasDate: 11/02/12 17:28 Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and gas Author: Lackawanna484 The Financial Post has an article today about growing interest in a new rail link from the western Canada oil and gas fields to Churchill, Manitoba. The link would increase export options during the ice-free shipping season.
Chinese, Korean, and Japanese investors have been financing plans for pipelines from Alberta to the Pacific ports, but this opens an additional outlet for exports. The background is a continuing irritation among many Canadians that they sell their petroleum to the US at a substantial discount to world prices. CN, which has a modest share of the current oil trade, denies knowledge of a Hudson's Bay oil port. >>Discussions are quietly underway between Calgary’s oil community, Canada’s only Arctic seaport, railway companies, and refiners on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast, as well as in Europe, to collect unrefined oil by rail from fields across Western Canada, get it to the port on the west coast of Hudson Bay and load it on Panamax-class tankers. “We think we can provide them with a competitive cost advantage to position [oil] to multiple destinations for a short period of time each year,” said Jeff McEachern, the Winnipeg-based executive director of Churchill Gateway Development Corp. who has been making frequent trips to Calgary during the past six months to fine-tune the strategy.<< -------------------- Exactly how far this conversation has gone is open to debate. OmniTrax (Hudson Bay Railroad) seems to say it has studied the issue and is in favor. CN, which would have part of the haul, denies involvement. http://business.financialpost.com/2012/10/31/oil-producers-eye-arctic-backup-plan-as-pipelines-face-uncertain-future/ Date: 11/02/12 21:32 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: thehighwayman Sounds like the old "run up a flag and see if anyone salutes" type of idea ....
Will MacKenzie Dundas, ON Date: 11/03/12 06:01 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: Lackawanna484 thehighwayman Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > Sounds like the old "run up a flag and see if > anyone salutes" type of idea .... Possibly. The situation in BC, where the provincial government and the First nations have blocked several pipelines have the federal government, the energy companies, etc in a bind for shipping petroleum to Asia. Opening an "eastern front" might move the product. Date: 11/03/12 07:33 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: ts1457 "Discussions are quietly underway between Calgary’s oil community, Canada’s only Arctic seaport, railway companies, and refiners on the East Coast and the Gulf Coast, as well as in Europe, to collect unrefined oil by rail from fields across Western Canada, get it to the port on the west coast of Hudson Bay and load it on Panamax-class tankers."
Yes, the environmentalist really had a victory by shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline. Date: 11/03/12 08:17 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: Lackawanna484 ts1457 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > "Discussions are quietly underway between > Calgary’s oil community, Canada’s only Arctic > seaport, railway companies, and refiners on the > East Coast and the Gulf Coast, as well as in > Europe, to collect unrefined oil by rail from > fields across Western Canada, get it to the port > on the west coast of Hudson Bay and load it on > Panamax-class tankers." > (snip) Some Canadians seem unhappy that logistics limitations compel them to sell fuel to the US at a substantial discount to the world price. Other Canadians are unhappy that the energy companies and the federal government seek to impose a pipeline on local people that won't benefit them (the local people) at all. It should be an interesting situation to watch. Lots of money is in this game. If CN (and I don't believe for a minute they aren't aware of what's happening) can pull this off, there will be a lot of revenue flowing through to their bottom line. Date: 11/03/12 13:19 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: ATSF3751 ts1457 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > "Discussions are quietly underway between > Calgary’s oil community, Canada’s only Arctic > seaport, railway companies, and refiners on the > East Coast and the Gulf Coast, as well as in > Europe, to collect unrefined oil by rail from > fields across Western Canada, get it to the port > on the west coast of Hudson Bay and load it on > Panamax-class tankers." > > Yes, the environmentalist really had a victory by > shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline. Keystone is going ahead. Not sure what you mean. There were routing problems that the Governors of several States were concerned about and President Obama rightly called for more review time. Despite this, Keystone XL is slated for completion by 2013. Check these facts if you wish. By the way, the oil that this pipeline will deliver will not make a dent in our energy independence, and it may very well be the dirtest fossil fuel we have yet produced. It is toxic to the level that it will rot through pipelines faster then any petrolium currently transported. Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/12 13:25 by ATSF3751. Date: 11/03/12 13:31 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: ts1457 ATSF3751 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > ts1457 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > Keystone is going ahead. Not sure what you mean. Remains to be seen, but we should have some clarity soon. However to clarify my point. Instead of the slight environmental risks from a pipeline, we might have super-tankers on an Artic routing. Date: 11/03/12 13:33 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: PHall ts1457 Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > ATSF3751 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ts1457 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > Keystone is going ahead. Not sure what you > mean. > > Remains to be seen, but we should have some > clarity soon. However to clarify my point. Instead > of the slight environmental risks from a pipeline, > we might have super-tankers on an Artic routing. Until the first one slices open it's hull on an ice berg... Date: 11/03/12 14:33 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: Ray_Murphy PHall Wrote:
> Until the first one slices open it's hull on an > ice berg... Some history about this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Manhattan_(1962) Note: for some reason or other, the closing parenthesis is not active in the link. You'll have to add it yourself. Ray Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/12 16:11 by Ray_Murphy. Date: 11/03/12 16:28 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: Lackawanna484 PHall Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------- > ts1457 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > ATSF3751 Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > ts1457 Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Keystone is going ahead. Not sure what you > > mean. > > > > Remains to be seen, but we should have some > > clarity soon. However to clarify my point. > Instead > > of the slight environmental risks from a > pipeline, > > we might have super-tankers on an Artic > routing. > > Until the first one slices open it's hull on an > ice berg... That's the game that's being played right now. A relatively less risky transportation method is being held up by local interests, environmentalists, crass politicians, well meaning folks, etc. So, a much more risky alternative is introduced as an alternative. Unfortunately. (But it would be good for CN and Hudson's Bay Rail) Date: 11/04/12 14:08 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: tomstp I really don't understand all the complainers about pipe lines. We in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, etc, have hundreds if not thousands of pipe lines running through our states. And all those states have furnished energy for the whole country and continent. We didn't raise hell when they were put in. They were jobs, good paying jobs and they made the products cheaper to buy and helped an entire nation to have a standard of living not seen in the rest of the world. We had oil wells drilled in our towns, in front of schools, close to hospitals and everything else in town. We have refineries close to towns. We even put up with the old time "smell of oil" which drilling does not now cause.
Now it is the turn of some other states and countries, to do their part. We have done ours and are still doing it with the horizontal driling and the new pipelines that go with it. I would hope that others would set back and reflect on what they have because of carbon energy especially since the industry is now sensitive to noise and polution. It truly is a win, win situation. Date: 11/05/12 06:51 Re: Canada considers "other than US" sales of oil and g Author: MSchwiebert Complete from Canada all the way to Oklahoma? I don't think so, sure there was that photo op bit where the prez "bragged" about an already approved small segment. As for 'not making a dent' while that's debatable, I'd still rather buy any oil from Canada than the middle east.
ATSF3751 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ts1457 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > "Discussions are quietly underway between > > Calgary’s oil community, Canada’s only > Arctic > > seaport, railway companies, and refiners on the > > East Coast and the Gulf Coast, as well as in > > Europe, to collect unrefined oil by rail from > > fields across Western Canada, get it to the > port > > on the west coast of Hudson Bay and load it on > > Panamax-class tankers." > > > > Yes, the environmentalist really had a victory > by > > shutting down the Keystone XL pipeline. > > > Keystone is going ahead. Not sure what you mean. > There were routing problems that the Governors of > several States were concerned about and President > Obama rightly called for more review time. Despite > this, Keystone XL is slated for completion by > 2013. Check these facts if you wish. By the way, > the oil that this pipeline will deliver will not > make a dent in our energy independence, and it may > very well be the dirtest fossil fuel we have yet > produced. It is toxic to the level that it will > rot through pipelines faster then any petrolium > currently transported. |