Pipeline Thru Canada to Midwest On Track

[tomahawk6]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/22/D8DCS5300.html

This has been discussed off and on for a long time. Natural gas prices are up and the transmission of gas is economical. Alaska has a huge supply of NG but hasnt been able to send it to market so this would be good. It would be cheaper to run the pipeline alongside the oil pipeline down to Valdez but I suspect that with the midwest's reliance on NG from the Gulf running the pipeline through Canada would eliminate this reliance. There will be alot of jobs created in both the US and Canada associated with this which will be a good thing.

 

[GrimRX]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/22/D8DCS5300.html

This has been discussed off and on for a long time. Natural gas prices are up and the transmission of gas is economical. Alaska has a huge supply of NG but hasnt been able to send it to market so this would be good. It would be cheaper to run the pipeline alongside the oil pipeline down to Valdez but I suspect that with the midwest's reliance on NG from the Gulf running the pipeline through Canada would eliminate this reliance. There will be alot of jobs created in both the US and Canada associated with this which will be a good thing.

Also then, if worst come to worst, we could hold it hostage,  :dontpanic:

 

[tomahawk6]

Or give the US an excuse for regime change.  >

 

[GrimRX]

Or give the US an excuse for regime change.  >

Psht, our Canadian Polar Bear Unit (CPBU) would stomp all over you guys, After all, we don't have a written right to bear arms, but that's never stopped us from having our right to Arm Bears,  :dontpanic:

 

[UberCree]

Firsst we would cut off our oil exports to U.S.  We do happen to be the largest exporting country of oil to the U.S. at 17%, i think Saudi Arabia is only around 13%.  then your gas prices would rise to over 5, 6 or even 7 dollars a gallon.  The people would revolt. :crybaby:
Then if you invaded as soon as winter hit all the boys from the south which make up a majorty of the miltary would revolt and or go awaol back to warmer clmates.  8)

 

[LF(CMO)]

Actually the pipeline is already built.  It is known as the Alliance Pipeline.  It runs from north of Fort St John, BC to Chicago.  It crosses the border somewhere in Sask.  It is 'stubbed off' north of FSJ waiting for the Alaska HW portion to be constructed.

Alliance Pipeline was originally a subsidiary of Westcoast Transmission.  They sold out to Duke Energy a couple of years ago, but I believe that Alliance was not included in the deal.  However, Duke did acquire the right of way down the Alaska HW from Westcoast.

Yea, Canada is the leading supplier of Gas and Oil to the US.  Please don't talk 'cutting off' the energy supply to the US.  First, there are contracts in place to prevent this and second many of us here in the west are completely depended on the Energy sector for our living.  My whole family is in the 'Oil patch' ie two son-in-laws, daughter and son.  As the recent poll taken by Wheaten Standard magazine showed any messing with our Oil business aka the National Energy Policy of the 70's and 'we're outa here'!!

 

[LF(CMO)]

The pipeline should be built through Alaska to Valdez, as Canadians "rightly" point out no foreign country should be able to dictate to them, I agree as well.   American Natural Gas, American Jobs.   I would change my mind if alberta and sask became part of the states eh.

Actually NG (unlike Oil) can only be moved efficiently in large quantities by pipeline.  However, as I stated previous, the Alliance pipeline is already in place.  The construction of the Alaska Highway portion of the pipeline will probably be announced within a year or so.  That it is going to happen in the short term future is common knowledge in the Oil Patch.

BTW: It has to pass through the Yukon and BC before Alberta and Sask.  Also here in the Oil producing areas we don't really care what they think in the rest of the country particularly Ontario.  They nearly ruined us in the 70's with the NEP.  It won't happen again!

 

[clasper]

The piplline should be built through Alaska to Valdez, as Canadians "rightly" point out no foreign country should be able to dictate to them, I agree as well.   American Natural Gas, American Jobs.   I would chnage my mind if alberta and Saskatchewan became part of the states eh.

The experimental LNG plant in Kenai, Alaska has had so many problems it would be foolish to depend on that technology for natural gas delivery when a simple pipeline will do.  If we were ignoring politics altogether, the best engineering solution (and by far the cheapest) would have the pipeline go east from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik, and then up the Mackenzie Valley until it met up with the existing pipeline network.  But we live in a world of politics, so in 15 years we'll probably have two pipelines coming thousands of kilometers to the south, and they'll only start a few hundred kilometers apart (in two different countries).

 

[LF(CMO)]

"..........................   If we were ignoring politics altogether, the best engineering solution (and by far the cheapest) would have the pipeline go east from Prudhoe Bay to Inuvik, and then up the Mackenzie Valley until it met up with the existing pipeline network.   But we live in a world of politics, so in 15 years we'll probably have two pipelines coming thousands of kilometers to the south, and they'll only start a few hundred kilometers apart (in two different countries)."

"Mackenzie Valley, the best and cheapest?......"not quite accurrate.  Read my earlier post.

"In 15 years we'll probably have two pipelines............"correct, but in less than 15.

 

[clasper]

"Mackenzie Valley, the best and cheapest?......"not quite accurrate.   Read my earlier post.

So maybe the best solution is to go east from Inuvik to Prudhoe, and then south along the current Alaska pipeline to Fairbanks, and then down the Alaska Highway to meet up with the current pipeline network.  My point is that constructing two large parallel natural gas pipelines (thousands of kilometers long, going to the same place, and starting a few hundred kilometers apart) is a waste of resources.  But because there are two countries and a bucketload of cash involved, we're going to end up with a big pile of redundancy.

 

[GrimRX]

So maybe the best solution is to go east from Inuvik to Prudhoe, and then south along the current Alaska pipeline to Fairbanks, and then down the Alaska Highway to meet up with the current pipeline network.  My point is that constructing two large parallel natural gas pipelines (thousands of kilometers long, going to the same place, and starting a few hundred kilometers apart) is a waste of resources.  But because there are two countries and a bucketload of cash involved, we're going to end up with a big pile of redundancy.

But hey, if no one's carrying it, what's wrong with alittle bit of redundancy?

 

[clasper]

But hey, if no one's carrying it, what's wrong with alittle bit of redundancy?

Having two pipelines certainly would lessen the impact of potential accidents, terrorism, etc.  Do you have an extra $24B lying around that couldn't be spent elsewhere?

 

[daniel h.]

Actually NG (unlike Oil) can only be moved efficiently in large quantities by pipeline.   However, as I stated previous, the Alliance pipeline is already in place.   The construction of the Alaska Highway portion of the pipeline will probably be announced within a year or so.   That it is going to happen in the short term future is common knowledge in the Oil Patch.

BTW: It has to pass through the Yukon and BC before Alberta and Sask.   Also here in the Oil producing areas we don't really care what they think in the rest of the country particularly Ontario.   They nearly ruined us in the 70's with the NEP.   It won't happen again!

Nobody "nearly ruined" anybody. No need to get melodramatic when a politician does what is in the best interest of the majority of Canadians, who simply happen to reside east of the prairies.

 

[daniel h.]

Yea, Canada is the leading supplier of Gas and Oil to the US.   Please don't talk 'cutting off' the energy supply to the US.   First, there are contracts in place to prevent this and second many of us here in the west are completely depended on the Energy sector for our living.   My whole family is in the 'Oil patch' ie two son-in-laws, daughter and son.  

There claim there are shortages of "skilled workers" on the oil patch and the oil patch is using this B.S. as an excuse to employ immigrants as cheap labour.

If you lose your job, blame the dinsosaur Ralph Klein and his corporate stooges who employ immigrants ahead of well-qualified Albertans.

As the recent poll taken by Wheaten Standard magazine showed any messing with our Oil business aka the National Energy Policy of the 70's and 'we're outa here'!!

Is this immature nonsense supposed to impress anyone Canadian? And what when the oil is gone and Alberta is another whiny have-not province, desperate for transfer-payments from industrial rich Ontario?

With respect to the NEP, you can disagree with how Trudeau used the moeny, but that 200 billion to 300 billion he seized was NOT going to go to Albertans instead, it was to go to American oil conglomerates like EXXON  Mobil (Imperial Oil--Esso) and Royal Dutch Shell at ZERO royalty, with few taxes paid and most of the profits reported in foreign countries.

The NEP made Albertans richer, as the money was (and still is) feeding corporations at the expense of everyone else.


I believe in capitalism but there is no reason for oil to be privately-owned. If Canada had a 100% public NEP we would have been debt free nationally even at high interest rates by 1990.

Ironically, even oil company polls originally showed support for the NEP in Alberta.

 

[a_majoor]

With respect to the NEP, you can disagree with how Trudeau used the money, but that 200 billion to 300 billion he seized was NOT going to go to Albertans instead, it was to go to American oil conglomerates like EXXON  Mobil (Imperial Oil--Esso) and Royal Dutch Shell at ZERO royalty, with few taxes paid and most of the profits reported in foreign countries.

The NEP made Albertans richer, as the money was (and still is) feeding corporations at the expense of everyone else.

A rather startling proposition, especially the last line. Money diverted from the general economy to fund "social programs" (using the polite term) is money diverted from savings and investment. To use an agricultural metaphor one of my profs liked;" saving is like preparing the soil, and investment is planting the seeds. Consumption is the harvest, but you always need to save the seed corn for the next crop"..

Consumption on the scale of the NEP or current Liberal tax rates is beyond harvesting and is more akin to clear cutting the forest then strip mining the clearcuts.

I believe in capitalism but there is no reason for oil to be privately-owned. If Canada had a 100% public NEP we would have been debt free nationally even at high interest rates by 1990.

I wait with baited breath to see you prove this one with hard numbers. Since the record of other nations with nationalized anything isn't very supportive of this proposition, you will be working under Carl Sagan's injunction "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

 

[sheikyerbouti]

Majoor,

How does one explain the current re-nationalisation of resources a la Putin? I agree with Dan H. in his assertion that there is much to be gained from full control over resources. In the face of sustained commodity price increases, our finite natural resources are increasingly demanded by other national interests (many of whom are non-traditional trade partners).

Russia and China both have increasingly aggressive corporate strategies which are intent on guaranteeing holdings and supply over the long term.

Your statement with respect to your agricultural metaphor is suspect as you are arguing the governance of a renewable asset is equivalent to that of a finite natural resource which is highly volatile and closely held.

The NEP was a mistake but not for the reasons mentioned. Although well intentioned towards developing the oil industry in Canada, Federal planners underestimated the impact of new on-stream providers such as Saudi Arabia which ramped up their production and consequently affected prices over most of the 80's and 90's. With this increased refining and distribution, the World enjoyed prices that it will never see again.

In simple terms....  The NEP was bad at 10 USD per Barrel but would have been great at 70 USD per barrel. Price protections would allow Canadians greater security in the face of highly volatile fuel prices and preferential agreements which divert our asset beyond our borders.

 

[couchcommander]

Money diverted from the general economy to fund "social programs" (using the polite term) is money diverted from savings and investment.

Broadly yes, but as your prof should have told you things never work out how they are supposed to. Ie, as in this example, the profits were going to foreign investors, which does sucessfully develop THEIR economy (and we may get some of that back in foreign direct investment), but in reality does very little to help develop OUR economy.

Furthermore, even if we assume that these profits are going to Canadian investors, one can be almost 100% sure that the vast, vast majority of it are going to the top 5% rich of society. How this is SUPPOSED (in some strange theoretical construct which has not, and cannot be proven) to help us is by increased reinvestment in the economy, leading to job creation.... but in reality they tend to use the money to create more shell companies to buy other companies for inflated prices, which results in the profits from the sale, once again, going into the pockets of the very wealthy, and, once again, being used to make more and more holding companies to buy other companies, effectively creating a big circle of increasing wealth for the wealthy in society (which is a trend, which, unlike theoretical job creation constructs, is actually playing itself out around us and can be demonstrated by looking at economic stratification rates in Canada, and especially the US, over the last few decades).

In the end, the average Joe gets nothing but questions as to why he isn't being more "productive" despite having a near stagnant standard of living for the last 10 years while the top 10% of Canadian society's weath mushrooms. Of course, economists blame it on a lack of tax cuts for the weathy so that they can reinvest in the economy..... and the cycle continues


(different topic, but very enlightening, a while ago I had a Liberal canidate for my riding over for a few drinks (don't worry guys, I really, really pushed the need for defence spending on him), and we got onto the topic of productivity. Being a former accountant in the corporate world he agreed with my view, saying that we could spend hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the corporations but all we would see is it being eaten up with no real effect; and that the key was greater education, especially post secondary, to increase productivity. This makes sense, as someone who is highly trained in what they do (and he was actualyl clear on this, not just university, but skilled trades as well) will usually "produce" more efficiently and effectively than a relatively untrained person (think of how a skilled master carpenter is a lot more productive (in terms of the value of goods he can produce in any given time) than an untrained laborourer trying to do the same thing. ))

 

[tomahawk6]

Maybe if Canada followed the US example and cut personal taxes which then stimulates the economy with more investment and job creation. If the Congress had not voted for tax relief the recession after 9-11 would have been much worse. Too much taxation inhibits growth, something the socialist governments in Europe are beginning to realize. Unemployment is higher in Europe vs the US.

Canada does 80% of its trade with the US. This trade means jobs in both countries. There are US corporations with factories in Canada. Canadian truckers haul freight inside the US as US drivers haul freight to Canada. Canadian energy is sold to the US which keeps Canadians working. Canada could sell energy to say China but there would be a higher cost to transport that energy. Canada in fact could stop trading with the US entirely. US corporations would relocate and Candian trucks would no longer be welcome on US highways. I dont think this is desireable for either country. Trade benefits both countries. A gas pipeline would create construction jobs and some perm jobs associated with the operation of the pipeline. A good thing I would think. The US is able to market gas that it hasnt been able to because the costs of transporting it dont make it economical.

 

[couchcommander]

Of course excessive taxation inhibits economic growth, and I apologize if I made it seem otherwise. As well, I am 100% behind cutting personal taxes via raising the exemption level (which will in turn increase consumer spending, and prop up the economy). Cutting corporate taxes or lowering the taxation rate for the highest levels done little for good of the majority of Canadian (though it may increase our GDP, the actual affect of that upon the living standards of most Canadians is insigificant).

The US was due for it's recession (happens every decade or two, heh, or with the election of a Republican (another interesting factoid, if one compares the economies under Democrates vs Republicans, one will immediately see the economy does MUCH better under democratic presidents)). Interesting to note that despite the much lower income tax rate for the rich in the States, and their immediate lowering of the taxes for the upper echelons, in Canada we did not actually ever fall into the technical definition of a recession, and our economy outpreformed the US economy during much of that period.

Lessening the effects of a recession has little to do with stop gap measures while it is happening, but results from years of strategic and effective fiscal, monentary, and legislative policy (ie like not running massive deficits, ensuring that the people most effected by the recession, the poor, do not fall so far they can't get up again, ensure you have an educated, employable workforce, steer the economy so that it is well rounded and not overly dependant on a few sectors (or specific corporations), prevent people from overextending themselves in terms of loans by keeping interest rates at reasonable levels, etc.).

 

[TCBF]

" Being a former accountant in the corporate world he agreed with my view, saying that we could spend hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the corporations but all we would see is it being eaten up with no real effect; and that the key was greater education, especially post secondary, to increase productivity. This makes sense, as someone who is highly trained in what they do (and he was actualyl clear on this, not just university, but skilled trades as well) will usually "produce" more efficiently and effectively than a relatively untrained person (think of how a skilled master carpenter is a lot more productive (in terms of the value of goods he can produce in any given time) than an untrained laborourer trying to do the same thing. ))"

- An interesting segway. But, lets keep the tax cuts, but apply them surgically.  At the same time, use targetted investment in education.  Let's fund better the degrees, diplomas and tickets we need in our economy and let other degrees (basket weaving, neanderthal S&M practices, homosexuality among consenting pet rocks) pay the FULL cost of education.

While we are at it, lets cut the "bring in a trained furriner rather than train an untrained Canadian" program that is turning our native born youth into welfare bums.

Tom