Alberta schlägt gemeinsam mit TMX und Pembina-Partnern eine neue Bitumenpipeline-Route zur Küste von British Columbia vor
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/agreement-between-bc-and-ottawa-supports-new-alberta-pipeline/
Alberta schlägt gemeinsam mit TMX und Pembina-Partnern eine neue Bitumenpipeline-Route zur Küste von British Columbia vor
https://www.ctvnews.ca/calgary/article/agreement-between-bc-and-ottawa-supports-new-alberta-pipeline/
5 Kommentare
So it sounds like this will be another multibillion-dollar subsidy for Alberta oil & gas. This on top of the billions for Pathways, billions for the last pipeline, and billions for orphan well cleanup.
People have been angry and up in arms for the last few weeks about this supposed “condo bailout”, because they don’t think private industry should get taxpayer cash. I wonder if those same people are going to be angry about this too.
Even putting aside the environmental problems with this deal, it’s particularly stupid because Canada only has access to enough diluent to move roughly 4 million bpd. Our total pipeline capacity going in all directions is already greater than our current output. Diluent is a mix in necessary for Alberta crude to be thin enough for transportation, otherwise it’s a very thick hard tar.
To export more, we’d either need to create massive and expensive closed system diluent extractors at the other ends, and then pipelines to pump that diluent back again the other direction (very very expensive and likely to decrease the competitive edge of any crude piped that way)
Or, we’d need to create even more diluent pipelines from the USA, further tying us to them. However even at their high rate of fracking they arent producing an excess greater than what we’re already consuming. So no extra diluent there. (Also even if there was, this would just give the USA more control over the price of Albertan crude).
Part of this shit-ass deal with Carney and Alberta relies on partial refining within Alberta. Which could be okay on its face if this was done decades ago.
However, those refineries need like 20-30 years to pay themselves off. Peak oil at this point is within a decade. So these refineries may never be paid off. The last barrel standing argument is usually made, but that only makes any potential sense now in the context of existing infrastructure. It makes zero sense when applied to new infrastructure.
For anyone who doesn’t understand what all this means, basically Carney is signing a deal that puts all the risk on the public (which seems to be a pattern with him). In 20-30 years Alberta will likely end up with a lot of stranded assets, and the oil companies in the meantime will get to reap massive profits.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. But this time in advance.
Somehow I feel the media pundits that moan about the government picking winners and losers when they invest in some green energy thing is going to have nothing to say as the government yet again puts our money toward propping up a project that the oil sands refuses to put their money forward on.
While I oppose the pipeline for many reasons, it certainly doesn’t make economic sense for Canadians and will never pay itself back as a direct asset, nor as a spin-off benefit for big oil as only 30 cents on the dollar stays in Canada. This is very sad.
Lol @ Poilievre:
> „You got one guy standing in the way of it all, and that’s Mark Carney,“ Poilievre said. “Provide the permit, let the private sector build it, get out of the way and get it done.”
There are two prime minister’s in the last 40 years that have run roughshod over public opinion to get a pipeline rammed through. Neither was conservative. One was even named Trudeau.
The notion that Carney is standing in the way of anything other than Pierre’s election odds is laughable.