Pipeline shortage to Cost the Canadian Economy $15.6 Billion this Year: Report

[Anonymous]

I would  guess that they are understating the problem. The discount on Western Canadian Select was over thirty bucks this morning. Pushing the hit to the Canadian economy closer to $20 billion. The solutuon is so simple, cut red tape and get those pipelines to tide water approved and in the ground now.



http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/a-self-inflicted-wound-pipeline-delays-to-cost-canadian-economy-15-6b-in-2018-says-scotiabank">http://business.financialpost.com/commo ... scotiabank">http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/a-self-inflicted-wound-pipeline-delays-to-cost-canadian-economy-15-6b-in-2018-says-scotiabank

The repercussions of the pipeline shortage that are causing massive discounts in Canadian heavy oil extend well beyond Alberta, warn Scotiabank economists



CALGARY – Lack of pipelines and massive discounts for Canadian heavy oil could cost the economy $15.6 billion this year, or three-fourths of a point from the country's GDP, according to economists at Scotiabank.



"Reliance on the existing pipeline network and rail shipments to bring Canadian oil to market has a demonstrable impact on Canada's well-being, with consequences that extend well beyond Alberta," Scotiabank senior vice-president and chief economist Jean-Francois Perrault and commodity economist Rory Johnston wrote in a report released Tuesday.



The economists said the current roughly US$24 per barrel discount between Western Canada Select and West Texas Intermediate oil prices would erase $15.6 billion from the economy this year, or around 0.75 per cent of the country's GDP.



Scotiabank called the delay of new export pipelines and the large discounts that it has triggered, "a self-inflicted wound."



"The sooner governments move to allow additional pipeline capacity to be built, the better off Canada will be," Scotiabank economists Perrault and Johnston wrote.



Kinder Morgan Canada's $7.4-billion Trans Mountain expansion, TransCanada Corp.'s US$8-billion Keystone XL and Enbridge Inc.'s $8.2-billion Line 3 replacement project are the three major export pipelines that could shrink the discount considerably, the bank said.



While all three have been approved by the Canadian government, they remain mired in court challenges from environmental groups or local communities, and have delayed their anticipated in-service dates. Line 3 is also awaiting approval from regulators in Minnesota.



Enbridge president and CEO Al Monaco said last week that surging oil production and limited pipeline capacity means the Line 3 project will be completely full when it is finished construction in 2019, if the regulators approve the project by the second quarter.



Separate from the approved pipelines, the Canadian federal government has also recently unveiled a new review process for  pipelines, which could complicate future assessments of new projects, according to analysts.

[Anonymous]

A lack of pipelines is the main reason my husband's shop may close down and move to North Dakota..



Carbon taxes, higher taxes of all kinds and new stifling regulations don't help either.

[Anonymous]

These numbers are grossly underestimated. Five years ago the Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimated the lack of market diversification cost the Canadian economy $55-$64 billion per day.



This is a war waged on Canada's working class by foreign billionaires.

[Anonymous]

Prog green dirty money is keeping working people down.

[Anonymous]

BC happy to export US coal but not Canadian petroleum – that's bad for the environment and for Canada



Think about that for a second. The US exports coal to Canada to get it to world markets because environmentalists won't allow it to flow through their ports back home. BC is actually expanding its ports to deal with increased coal shipments, both imports from the US and homegrown production.



et's be very clear about what's happening here. BC is one of the most vocal critics of fossil fuels and one of the largest proponents of greener economies. The coastline is therefore all but off limits to natural gas or oil export, all in the name of the environment. Yet coal is not only produced and shipped from BC to the world, but our nation accepts shipments from the US because American producers can't get it through their own ports on account of the environmental negativity of coal.



It's a bit hard to see how a civilized country got to this state. It did have some help from the tactics of the climate change industry. As one example, the world has developed an irrational hatred of Canada's oilsands simply because of the sheer size of them and the fact that they are operated transparently. It's odd that heavy oil deposits in Venezuela and even California don't seem to bother anyone. Environmentalists ignited the imaginations of the lowest common denominator by pointing out how much carbon would be released if all the oil sands were burned.



Do we ban campfires on the logic that burning every tree on the planet would raise the earth's temperature? Do we condemn solar panels because if the world was covered with them we couldn't grow vegetables? Don't scoff. Those scenarios are no more ludicrous than the suggestion that we could or would burn all the oil in the oilsands. It is shockingly dishonest to even imply that was anyone's plan, vision, or hope.



At the same time, Canadian natural gas exports are a fading dream as potential exporters tire of the ridiculous battles and simply fade away. These developments are particularly interesting in light of the impact natural gas has on the environment relative to coal.



BC is green-lighting coal exports, it is even expanding terminals to do so. But coal is the real culprit in manmade emissions. Coal generates 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the oilsands about 0.1 percent. Further, oil sands emissions are only slightly higher than other forms of crude, so replacing the world's coal consumption with Canadian oil and natural gas would dramatically decrease global GHG emissions. Switching global coal consumption to natural gas would probably decrease GHG emissions by 20 percent alone, if natural gas burns at one-fifth the emissions level of coal.



Canada desperately needs leadership, or we will watch our standard of living recede to the point where the environment will be the last of our concerns.

https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-happy-to-export-us-coal-but-not-canadian-petroleum-thats-bad-for-the-environment-and-for-canada/">https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-hap ... or-canada/">https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-happy-to-export-us-coal-but-not-canadian-petroleum-thats-bad-for-the-environment-and-for-canada/



The hypocrisy and irrationality is so blatant.

[Anonymous]

BC happy to export US coal but not Canadian petroleum – that's bad for the environment and for Canada



Think about that for a second. The US exports coal to Canada to get it to world markets because environmentalists won't allow it to flow through their ports back home. BC is actually expanding its ports to deal with increased coal shipments, both imports from the US and homegrown production.



et's be very clear about what's happening here. BC is one of the most vocal critics of fossil fuels and one of the largest proponents of greener economies. The coastline is therefore all but off limits to natural gas or oil export, all in the name of the environment. Yet coal is not only produced and shipped from BC to the world, but our nation accepts shipments from the US because American producers can't get it through their own ports on account of the environmental negativity of coal.



It's a bit hard to see how a civilized country got to this state. It did have some help from the tactics of the climate change industry. As one example, the world has developed an irrational hatred of Canada's oilsands simply because of the sheer size of them and the fact that they are operated transparently. It's odd that heavy oil deposits in Venezuela and even California don't seem to bother anyone. Environmentalists ignited the imaginations of the lowest common denominator by pointing out how much carbon would be released if all the oil sands were burned.



Do we ban campfires on the logic that burning every tree on the planet would raise the earth's temperature? Do we condemn solar panels because if the world was covered with them we couldn't grow vegetables? Don't scoff. Those scenarios are no more ludicrous than the suggestion that we could or would burn all the oil in the oilsands. It is shockingly dishonest to even imply that was anyone's plan, vision, or hope.



At the same time, Canadian natural gas exports are a fading dream as potential exporters tire of the ridiculous battles and simply fade away. These developments are particularly interesting in light of the impact natural gas has on the environment relative to coal.



BC is green-lighting coal exports, it is even expanding terminals to do so. But coal is the real culprit in manmade emissions. Coal generates 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, the oilsands about 0.1 percent. Further, oil sands emissions are only slightly higher than other forms of crude, so replacing the world's coal consumption with Canadian oil and natural gas would dramatically decrease global GHG emissions. Switching global coal consumption to natural gas would probably decrease GHG emissions by 20 percent alone, if natural gas burns at one-fifth the emissions level of coal.



Canada desperately needs leadership, or we will watch our standard of living recede to the point where the environment will be the last of our concerns.

https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-happy-to-export-us-coal-but-not-canadian-petroleum-thats-bad-for-the-environment-and-for-canada/">https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-hap ... or-canada/">https://boereport.com/2017/10/23/bc-happy-to-export-us-coal-but-not-canadian-petroleum-thats-bad-for-the-environment-and-for-canada/



The hypocrisy and irrationality is so blatant.

BC is playing politics. Their intrasigence it has nothing to do with climate or the environment.

[Anonymous]

There was talk before about Alberta and Saskatchewan oil going by rail to Churchill. The former NDP government didn't like it of course, but they are long gone.

[Anonymous]

Nothead has hinted she may not raise the carbon tax annually as True Dope wants if the KMX doesn't get built. Puts the pressure on numbnuts to do his fucking job.

[Anonymous]

Nothead has hinted she may not raise the carbon tax annually as True Dope wants if the KMX doesn't get built. Puts the pressure on numbnuts to do his fucking job.

Premier Notley suspended the ban on BC wine today.

[Angry White Male]

Since most of the posters here are from Alberta, just understand that I want the pipeline built also.



Not all of us here are left-wing tree-hugging welfare bums.  Some of us understand the money has to come from somewhere, to fund social programs.



Hell, the fucking Indians and left-wing welfare bums here should support this, since they may get a 'pay raise' out of the deal!

[Anonymous]

Since most of the posters here are from Alberta, just understand that I want the pipeline built also.



Not all of us here are left-wing tree-hugging welfare bums.  Some of us understand the money has to come from somewhere, to fund social programs.



Hell, the fucking Indians and left-wing welfare bums here should support this, since they may get a 'pay raise' out of the deal!

Shen Li, Priscilla, Velvet and I are from Alberta..



Herman is from Saskatchewan, realgrimm, Zetsu and Seoul are from Ontario, IHJ and Thiel are from Manitoba, DD and Bricktop are from Australia, Azhya, Wazzzup, shin and Blazor are Americans, SCOUSE and KAM are Bristish, you, cc and Berry Sweet are from the West coast, Odinson is unemployed and Lance, who knows..



Most of us are not from Alberta, but we all understand that blocking development is not very practical.

[Angry White Male]

Odinson is Finnish.



And is Kam really 'British' per se?  When did Ireland become 'British?'  I'm not that old, but when I grew up there was a difference...  I don't think there is now.



Northern Ireland is different though...  It's its own thing.  Pretty White, but I don't think they've ever done that well, but I could be wrong, as I have never been to Northern Ireland.

[Anonymous]

Odinson is Finnish.



And is Kam really 'British' per se?  When did Ireland become 'British?'  I'm not that old, but when I grew up there was a difference...  I don't think there is now.



Northern Ireland is different though...  It's its own thing.  Pretty White, but I don't think they've ever done that well, but I could be wrong, as I have never been to Northern Ireland.

KAM lives in England.

[Angry White Male]

I thought he was Irish?

[Anonymous]

I thought he was Irish?

He might be, or he might be of Irish descent, but he lives in England.