Jump to content

      













Photo

Oil & gas production and shipping


  • Please log in to reply
1114 replies to this topic

#21 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 March 2012 - 03:42 PM

I'm not making comparisons between different economic theories, I'm pointing out we pay more for gas in Canada than in America, Mexico, even Honduras.


http://www.nationmas...gasoline-prices

Not according to that. According to that, we pay less than Mexico and Honduras. Mexico has a nationalized oil company (Pemex) and maybe Honduras just has low taxes.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#22 ptolomeus

ptolomeus
  • Member
  • 161 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:31 AM

In the western world (north america, european union, ...), we all pay the same for the crude oil (world market commodity). The difference between the price of crude oil and the price of gas at the pump is the taxation. The US have the least, Europe most and Canada is somewhere in between ;)

#23 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:53 AM

In the western world (north america, european union, ...), we all pay the same for the crude oil (world market commodity). The difference between the price of crude oil and the price of gas at the pump is the taxation. The US have the least, Europe most and Canada is somewhere in between ;)


That about sums it up. Mike has some strange socialist/protectionist stance that says if I dig up some oil in my backyard I should sell it to my fellow Canadian for a lower price than I can sell it to an American for.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#24 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 46,578 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 01:42 PM

http://www.nationmas...gasoline-prices

Not according to that. According to that, we pay less than Mexico and Honduras. Mexico has a nationalized oil company (Pemex) and maybe Honduras just has low taxes.


You gotta stop relying on random websites for facts. A quick check on Google for actual oil prices at the pump across North America shows:

Mexico: $2.73 CAD per US gallon
USA: $3 - $4 CAD per US gallon
Canada: $5+ per US gallon

Mike has some strange socialist/protectionist stance that says if I dig up some oil in my backyard I should sell it to my fellow Canadian for a lower price than I can sell it to an American for.


VHF, where are you getting this stuff?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#25 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,313 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 02:36 PM

Mike, that sounds like a question a COMMUNIST would ask...
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#26 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 10,252 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

http://www.nationmas...gasoline-prices

Not according to that. According to that, we pay less than Mexico and Honduras. Mexico has a nationalized oil company (Pemex) and maybe Honduras just has low taxes.


This web page is out of wack. It says that Canada's price for gas is .95 per litre. I just paid $1.35 on the way home. If this is supposed to be an average, then somebody somewhere is selling some pretty cheap gas.

#27 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 46,578 posts

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:29 PM

That makes no sense. The source is only a decade old:

German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ), Fuel Prices and Taxation (1999) and the electronic update for2000. Available from World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002, WDI table 3.12. via ciesin.org


Maybe we should ask a communist for more recent data? :)

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#28 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:44 AM

Victoria city councillor to introduce motion to oppose oil tanker traffic.

Apparently city council is proposing this motion after being prompted by the community. How much weight would this motion carry in opposing tanker traffic?

We all want to keep using oil, but no one wants anything to do with having it go through their backyard. We all want to keep using electricity, but we oppose building new dams to help generate it. Nuclear power, nope! Coal mining on the island? NO. Wind farms... not around here.

more on the motion:
http://www.cfax1070....news&Itemid=155

#29 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 13 March 2012 - 10:39 AM

Banning tankers in the north will mean more off the shore of Victoria......

In other news, CP is making a serious move into moving large amounts of oil by rail. This should be a serious concern to everyone because the odds of an oil spill with a train are much higher than with a pipeline.

Rail for oil also makes sending oil to Vancouver much more likely and will probably increase tanker traffic off of our shores.

#30 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 11:19 AM

In other news, CP is making a serious move into moving large amounts of oil by rail. This should be a serious concern to everyone because the odds of an oil spill with a train are much higher than with a pipeline.

Rail for oil also makes sending oil to Vancouver much more likely and will probably increase tanker traffic off of our shores.


Of course they are. It's all ass-backwards. The laws of unintended consequences.

A rail spill has some factor of built-in containment in that only the cars that overturn and rupture spill, no ongoing spewing of the goo from a pipeline. I know, modern pipeline technology overcomes the spew hazard with auto-shutoffs, but nobody listens about that.

Is there a technological way to send oil down the existing pipelines faster? Increasing the volume in the same pipe, or in the same but reinforced pipe?
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#31 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 01:28 PM

A rail spill has some factor of built-in containment in that only the cars that overturn and rupture spill, no ongoing spewing of the goo from a pipeline. I know, modern pipeline technology overcomes the spew hazard with auto-shutoffs, but nobody listens about that.


Even with shutoffs, our local sewage goo runs downhill. So if a pipe ruptures far away from the nearest shutoff, the goo runs out and down the hill.

I think they reheat the goo at various stages of the pipeline to keep it running smoothly.

I like the rail option as it will mean more BC jobs, and an upgraded rail bed will allow for an increase in the container trains, or coal trains if that is the product of the day.

#32 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 13 March 2012 - 04:41 PM

The rail option is expensive, inefficient and much more prone to leakages and spills. It is only an option as long as oil prices are high.

And seriously, do we really want 2-3 times as many tankers off of Victoria?

#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 46,578 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 06:39 PM

I'm sure oil prices will remain high, though. We're in a global recession and oil prices should be deflated, meanwhile demand continues to grow and production capacity can't keep up. When the global economy roars back to full health we'll likely hit $2 a liter in Canada within a couple of years.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#34 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 13 March 2012 - 08:56 PM

The rail option is expensive, inefficient and much more prone to leakages and spills. It is only an option as long as oil prices are high.

And seriously, do we really want 2-3 times as many tankers off of Victoria?


The thing is Harper has said he would give the Asian market access to our energy, so we need to find the method of oil and gas delivery that has the lesser environmental impact.

http://www.pm.gc.ca/...dia.asp?id=4625

I agree with VHF. "A rail spill has some factor of built-in containment in that only the cars that overturn and rupture spill."

With a pipeline once you build it you are locked into where the source is, and where the port destination is located.

With rail you can ship the oil anywhere that the tracks will take you. Not only that, the trackage is already in place, so you don't need to wait for years until it gets approved and built. And that's a good thing.

Edited by Bingo, 27 February 2016 - 09:09 AM.


#35 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 14 March 2012 - 07:44 AM

I'm sure oil prices will remain high, though. We're in a global recession and oil prices should be deflated, meanwhile demand continues to grow and production capacity can't keep up. When the global economy roars back to full health we'll likely hit $2 a liter in Canada within a couple of years.


I would not bet on long term high oil prices. More and more oil will be coming online because of the high prices. Meanwhile demand is likely to start falling, for a number of years now global demand has been between 83 and 88 million barrels a day. If demand had continued upwards at the historical rate it would more like 93 to 95 million barrels a day.

High oil prices is causing people to buy more fuel efficient cars. Industry is finding ways to cut down on all manner of petroleum products.

It takes very little excess supply to drive prices down very far.

I think it much more likely we would see a $50 a barrel oil than $200 a barrel oil.

#36 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 09:54 AM

I wouldn't bet on any stability or lower prices as long as there is turmoil in the Middle East.
According to this table it is the possibility of war the keeps the cost of oil up.

 


Edited by Bingo, 27 February 2016 - 09:10 AM.


#37 Bernard

Bernard
  • Member
  • 4,241 posts
  • LocationVictoria BC

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:27 AM

I wouldn't bet on any stability or lower prices as long as there is turmoil in the Middle East.
According to this table it is the possibility of war the keeps the cost of oil up.

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

Crude Oil Prices 1970 - October 2011



Click on graph for larger view


A smaller percentage of global oil is coming from unstable middle eastern countries. Also, the oil sheiks have to sell their oil to survive.

#38 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 46,578 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:44 AM

I'd have to disagree. Even in the link you provided we're hovering around around the point of maximum oil production. There is very little capacity left without investing untold billions to build additional refineries, and I don't think there is a lot of appetite by any oil producing country to build additional capacity which would only drive the price of oil down lower, albeit not for long.

No matter how much oil we conserve in Europe and America, China and India will take it all. They have a burgeoning middle class and sell more vehicles year over year.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#39 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 10:54 AM

No matter how much oil we conserve in Europe and America, China and India will take it all.


To do what with? Without Europe and the US with a healthy economies to take their products, they don't have an increasing demand.

They have a burgeoning middle class and sell more vehicles year over year


Again, they do only as long as we keep up demand for their exports.
<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#40 Bingo

Bingo
  • Member
  • 16,666 posts

Posted 14 March 2012 - 03:29 PM

Kitimat is 80 miles from open ocean, and two way tanker traffice would need to navigate the narrow channels to get in and out. The tankers would then need to go around the South end of Queen Charlotte Island past Haida Gwaii Park and Heritage site, before getting into the Great Circle shipping route to Asia.

Prince Rupert with it's deep water port at Ridley Island is the closest North American Port to Asia. The port has the capacity to store 1.2 million tonnes of Western Canada metallurgical coal and an annual shipping capacity of 12 million tonnes. All of this arrives by CN Rail.
http://www.rupertpor...eyterminals.htm

The Prince Rupert Port Authority has engaged with the BG Group to consider Prince Rupert for a potential LNG export facility.
http://www.mikemorse...e-northern-view

Both the Port of Prince Rupert and CN Rail are putting up $30-million each and Christy Clark came to Prince Rupert last September to announce a $15-million investment on behalf of the Province.
http://www.mikemorse...e-northern-view

It is my view that no matter what commodity we are exporting to Asia, or importing into Canada from Asia, Prince Rupert will be the logical port to use, and it appears that other big time players agree. Rail infrastructure is already in place.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users