[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Toronto Transit Commission unveiled their new fare inspectors, the Provincial Offences Officers. TTC: POO. sounds about right.

[viper37]

I'm not too familiar with this.  I've posted this for discussion, because I've read recently that natural gas prices had risen since the elimination of the consumer carbon tax. And Deloitte is predicting a further rise, up to 60%.

link? I doubt very much that the BC Utility Commission is going to increase the consumer price of natural gas by 60%

Ah, the full report id much more nuanced than the articles I've read:
Full report

Canadian natural gas prices could climb 60% this year as LNG exports ramp up, Deloitte predicts
(Financial Post)
According to Deloitte, the Alberta benchmark price, known as AECO, is expected to hit an average of $2.20 per million BTUs in the second half of the year, up by close to 62 per cent over 2024 levels. The report expects another big jump next year, with average prices rising to $3.50 per million BTUs.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, it's not that it is nuanced. It is not related at all to the initial claim you made that the increase was related to the removal of the carbon tax.

Good example of how social media works. You made a claim based on what you said you had  read, HVC made a sarcastic post assuming your claim was true. Others who read your post may have tight your claim had some merit.

For clarity, what is happening is that the price Alberta can get on the international market is now going to increase because it can now reach Asian markets through BC LNG terminals.

It's a good news story that has gotten warped through the misinformation magic of social media.

[Zoupa]

Good news is relative. That gas would do us all better by staying underground.

[crazy canuck]

Good news is relative. That gas would do us all better by staying underground.

Yeah, I should have qualified my characterization as being it is good economic news for Alberta.  There is argument to be had about whether keeping the natural gas in the ground, rather than sending it to Asia is a net negative given the fact they will just burn coal instead of LNG.

[viper37]

Ok, it's not that it is nuanced. It is not related at all to the initial claim you made that the increase was related to the removal of the carbon tax.

Good example of how social media works. You made a claim based on what you said you had  read, HVC made a sarcastic post assuming your claim was true. Others who read your post may have tight your claim had some merit.

For clarity, what is happening is that the price Alberta can get on the international market is now going to increase because it can now reach Asian markets through BC LNG terminals.

It's a good news story that has gotten warped through the misinformation magic of social media.

It is not related at all to the initial claim you made that the increase was related to the removal of the carbon tax.

I did not say it was related.  I must have badly expressed myself.

I said that since the carbon tax removal, the price had jumped, according to report. In another unrelated report, Deloitte has predicted that LNG prices would increase by 60% this year in Canada.

There is no correlation except time for the first increase, and it's a possibility that companies supplying LNG to consumers are profiting from the situation to subtly raise their prices.

For the 60% jump, there's an assortment of market conditions, but it's not just internal Canadian market conditions and sudden, freer access to exports that are raising the price, it's also US tariffs and international conditions.


I am sorry.  I went with two things at once and it was left unclear.

[viper37]

Good news is relative. That gas would do us all better by staying underground.

Depends.

Ideally, yes.

But what is gas used for?  To replace solar powered generators?  To replace hydro-electric dams or nuclear powered plants?  To replace windfarms?  To stall the development of green techs?

Most of its use is to replace coal and oil thermal plants.

Not ideal.  Not optimal.

Gas should be used to warm people in the winter, to heat a stove, while other, greener energy sources should be used to light everything.  Until the day we can power everything with green tech.

But it's not gonna happen right now all across the world where they buy our LNG to power themselves.

That is the unfortunate truth.

Best we can hope is displace their coal and possibly oil consumption for some, when they need to import it.

That's the realistic version.

It sucks.  We are 30 years behind.  This is what should have been done 30 years ago, at least, and by now we should be transitioning away from gas to greener techs.

Thanks to the greens and the left, we didn't.

[Zoupa]

These are good points, cc/viper. Ideally you'd want coal to transition directly to renewable, but it might not be feasible short term.

Still, you'd think all the infrastructure investment on our part won't be that smart if Asia goes close to full renewable within say 20 years.

[Zoupa]

And btw blaming greens/lefties for not switching to renewable fast enough is certainly a take. Inertia, big oil lobbying, collectivization of the consequences of global warming but privatizing profits are more logical culprits.

[Bauer]

A problem with transitioning directly from coal to renewables is that it represents a big infrastructure change.  I'm not completely up to date on this topic, but as i recall the power grids can easily be switched from Coal > LNG simply because both are generate as you need models.  In many cases you can simply drop the LNG into the existing plant where coal used to be and all the power lines are still there.  Whereas renewables require storage and fundamental changes to the grid, which is something that needs to happen more gradually over time especially for developing nations.

[Bauer]

On the topic of the G&M article about Australia's LNG...  i don't agree with the concept that a country should expect lower domestic gas prices for having that resource.  It's sort of an old school protectionist idea, but being an open trading country is where prosperity lies.  You could make an argument that the oil producers are not paying their fair share domestically per say, but that's a separate issue from charging market price.

I have no problem with more LNG pipelines and expansion, to both Asia & Europe.  Europe isn't ready to move off LNG yet either and sticking to an ideal that the world should skip LNG and move directly to renewables only benefits Russia.

Crude oil is another question.  It totally makes sense to maximize the value of the trans Canada pipeline right now (see article below), although i'm not sure if Canada actually needs another oil pipeline to get market value for the current crude output or not    Daniel Smith needs to come up with some #s.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/trans-mountain-says-projects-could-expand-pipeline-capacity-by-300000-bpd-2025-02-06/

Feb 6 (Reuters) - Canadian pipeline operator Trans Mountain is looking at expansion projects in the short and long terms that could add between 200,000 and 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) of capacity to the company's system, Jason Balasch, a company vice president, said on Thursday.
The pipeline, which can currently carry up to 890,000 bpd of crude from Alberta to Canada's Pacific Coast for export, has been in the spotlight since U.S. President Donald Trump said his country would slap 10% tariffs on Canadian oil imports. Trump on Monday paused the oil tariff -- and others that he said he would impose on Canada and Mexico -- for 30 days.


The pipeline has offered a way for Canadian oil producers to sell to international markets without relying on the U.S. network of pipelines. The pipeline currently accounts for 9% of Canada's total crude exports.
Trans Mountain is exploring short-term options, including using a drag-reducing agent in its pipeline to boost the flows and longer-term solutions like adding pumps, Balasch said on the sidelines of an oil conference in Houston.
The company is not looking to add a third line, Balasch said
Trans Mountain should be able to load a total of 28-30 tankers per month at Vancouver once port restrictions ease to allow nighttime transit, which is expected in the third quarter, he added.

The Port of Vancouver is in the process of installing navigation aids. When fully operational, the upgrades will allow shippers to bring inbound unladen Aframax vessels at night, easing previous daylight-only transit restrictions that have limited Trans Mountain's loadings.
Trans Mountain has so far loaded a maximum of 24 Aframax vessels per month. Aframaxes typically transport up to 800,000 barrels, but at the company's Westridge marine terminal they are limited to loading around 550,000 barrels because of draft restrictions. .
The company was also receiving increased inquiries from new potential shippers since the tariff threats, Balasch said, adding that utilization on the pipeline had been rising even before Trump's announcement.
"I think there's a lot of Asian markets that we could access," Balasch said. "Our system isn't full and we're confident we can operate it to it's maximum."
This would be a whole truckload of a 40-tonnes truck.
The Canadian government, which owns Trans Mountain, has been supportive of expansions, Balasch added.
The company has been laying the groundwork for the expansion since before and the "tariff has just increased the brightness of that spot," Balasch said.

[Admiral Yi]

And btw blaming greens/lefties for not switching to renewable fast enough is certainly a take. Inertia, big oil lobbying, collectivization of the consequences of global warming but privatizing profits are more logical culprits.

What difference does it make who you blame it on?

[Zoupa]

Historical truth kinda matters to me.

[Jacob]

Historical truth kinda matters to me.

Intellectual honesty matters.

And blaming people for things they didn't do makes it easier to dismiss what they say now on the same topic, since "they were wrong before". Even if they weren't.

Given how the right - especially the American right - like to blame their political opponents for things they did in the past, keeping some measure of intellectual accountability seems important.

[crazy canuck]

These are good points, cc/viper. Ideally you'd want coal to transition directly to renewable, but it might not be feasible short term.

Still, you'd think all the infrastructure investment on our part won't be that smart if Asia goes close to full renewable within say 20 years.

Yes, it is an investment that is very sensitive to the price of LNG.  That is the main reason why the Woodfibre terminal took so long - the operator's decision to commence construction was delayed for a number of years while it waited for LNG prices to stabilize before making their final investment decision.

Could they be wrong about their long term projections? Yes, but that is the concern of the investors in the project.  It is not an infrastructure investment on our part.