Pure Spite

Look, the fact of the matter is that Alberta Tar Sands are no longer economically viable. About a year’s worth of Global demand in superior product is now in storage on land and floating in reconditioned tankers (many were mothballed) at sea.

And when I say superior product you have to remember that extracting usable oil from this crap is about as easy and expensive as getting it from used tires and chunks of asphalt. It costs between $70 and $90 per barrel just to process and over the last month the average price of West Texas Intermediate has been about $41 and the lowest cost producers can pump at about $2 to $10.

Nor is this situation likely to change soon. Forget the sea of surplus, the major Middle Eastern players have every incentive to increase production and likely will. Saudi Arabia needs to finance their welfare state or face a bloody revolution. Iran is determined to undo decades worth of sanctions. Iraq is already paying for a civil war (call it terrorism if you like, it’s a Sunni separatist movement). They have a lot of oil and aren’t even pumping as fast as they can because there’s no place to park it.

Then there is the South China Sea. Why do you think China is building all those islands?

We have all the Oil we can possibly burn before we become extinct because of Global Warming in proven reserves. Alberta Tar Sands are about as useful as Tits on a Bull.

Yet because of sunk costs (told you not to invest in Buggy Whips) companies like TransCanada and Enbridge insist they can sell it anyway.

I don’t know how supposedly elite business people (the best and the brightest you know, far superior in intellect and training to you ignorant peons) think they can profit by selling goods at a loss.

Maybe they make it up in volume.

Still, if they just throw enough money at it, surely that will solve the problem (I want to play Poker with you sooo bad Sucker) which is why you get idiotic ideas like this-

US environmentalists take aim at second TransCanada pipeline
Associated Press
Wednesday 27 July 2016

TransCanada is behind the Energy East pipeline project, a 4,600km pipeline, or nearly 3,000 miles, that would carry crude oil from tar sands in Western Canada to the East Coast, where it would then be shipped to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. When completed, the project would carry 1.1m barrels of crude oil every day from Alberta and Saskatchewan to refineries in Eastern Canada.
…
“What we have is a proposal to move nearly 300 super tankers down the eastern seaboard, and we don’t have the techniques and technology to contain and clean a spill of tar sands diluted bitumen should one happen,” said Anthony Swift, the Canada project director for the Natural Resources Defense Council.

TransCanada said that the project would adhere to stringent safety standards and that it would be the responsibility of its customers of where they ship the oil, noting that “it does not own or operate ships for the delivery of oil.”

“Safety remains our top priority,” TransCanada spokesman Jonathan Abecassis said in an email to The Associated Press. He said the port in New Brunswick “will have a number of preventive safety measures” including the use of trained pilots and advanced navigational and docking technologies.

“We are working in collaboration with local authorities and first responders during the development of our emergency plan to ensure that the plan is adapted to local circumstances with resources placed strategically across the route to react quickly in the unlikely event of an emergency,” he said.

TransCanada’s Plan B ‘Is Truly Keystone XL on Steroids’
By Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams
Jul 27, 2016

(The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)) notes that the Gulf of Maine, Acadia National Park and the Florida Keys are all in the pipeline’s “crosshairs,” as well as iconic marine species and billion dollar commercial fisheries on the East Coast, including New England and Atlantic Canada’s lobster and sea scallops fisheries.
…
In making its argument, the NRDC leans on a 2016 study by Canada’s National Academy of Sciences (NAS), which found that large portions of diluted bitumen—which Energy East would transport—can be expected to sink if spilled in water. The same report found that current regulations and spill response techniques are incapable of managing the unique behavior and higher risks of tar sands diluted bitumen spill in water.
…
Meanwhile, the NRDC is calling for a tar sands oil tanker moratorium in U.S. and Canadian waters until appropriate spill response techniques are developed to address a diluted bitumen spill into water.

But beyond that, many say the pipeline simply should not be built. Pointing to the devastating pipeline leak that flooded the North Saskatchewan River with 200,000 liters of tar sands crude last week, the Council of Canadians on Monday warned that spills are “inevitable and permanent consequences of transporting oil.”

“When thinking about the future we want, let us remember that the proposed Energy East pipeline crosses 90 watersheds, nearly 3,000 waterways and puts the drinking water of over 5 million people at risk along its route,” wrote energy and climate justice campaigner Daniel Cayley-Daoust.

Finance Department memo says no new oil pipeline needed ’until at least 2025’
The Canadian Press
July 12, 2016 6:31 PM ET

A memo to the deputy minister of finance says low oil prices mean there is enough transport capacity in Canada without any new pipelines until at least 2025.

The memo, dated last December but obtained this week through the Access to Information Act, also says TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline would have only a marginal impact on the price differential for Canadian producers.

Canadian oil was selling at a $25-per-barrel discount or more in 2012 and 2013 compared to the price for international Brent crude, but that discount has all but disappeared.

The memo says Energy East would reduce the differential by only $1.48 per barrel compared to oil shipped by existing pipelines to the United States.

A spokesman for Energy East says the proposed $15.7-billion pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick already has long-term contracts with oil shippers, demonstrating the market demand over the coming decades.A memo to the deputy minister of finance says low oil prices mean there is enough transport capacity in Canada without any new pipelines until at least 2025.

The memo, dated last December but obtained this week through the Access to Information Act, also says TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline would have only a marginal impact on the price differential for Canadian producers.

Canadian oil was selling at a $25-per-barrel discount or more in 2012 and 2013 compared to the price for international Brent crude, but that discount has all but disappeared.

The memo says Energy East would reduce the differential by only $1.48 per barrel compared to oil shipped by existing pipelines to the United States.

A spokesman for Energy East says the proposed $15.7-billion pipeline from Alberta to New Brunswick already has long-term contracts with oil shippers, demonstrating the market demand over the coming decades.

Saskatchewan oil spill has Manitoba activist worried about Energy East
CBC News
Jul 27, 2016 1:03 PM CT

Last week 200,000 litres of heavy oil mixed with a thinning chemical leaked into the North Saskatchewan River near Lloydminster, Sask. Paterson said it’s a lesson he doesn’t want to see learned with the Energy East pipeline.

The Energy East proposal would repurpose a 40-year-old natural gas pipeline that runs past Shoal Lake at the Manitoba-Ontario border. Shoal Lake is the source of Winnipeg’s drinking water and Paterson said he doesn’t want to see a similar situation to the Saskatchewan spill happen here.
…
TransCanada has proposed a 4,600-kilometre pipeline from Alberta to Quebec and New Brunswick that would transport about 1.1 million barrels of crude daily. The project would see the pipeline traverse two metres below the Shoal Lake aqueduct, where Manitoba drinking water is taken.

It also will cross just south of the Brady Road Resource Management Facility, the city landfill in south Winnipeg.
…
“We are risking the drinking water of 600,000 people in Winnipeg for an industry that has to be on the decline rather than the ratchet up,” Paterson said.
…
However, officials said they are in talks with the Town of The Pas, which uses the Saskatchewan River as a source of drinking water, to discuss alternatives if required.