Oil spill puts future of BP in doubt - Calgary Herald
While this story makes no reference to Denali (or any other northern project, for that matter), it's worthy of discussion because of the potential fallout.
BP is in some serious trouble. As this story points out, they've lost 30% of their market cap since the spill started, and the situation seems to deteriorate by the day. I find it hard to believe that this can actually improve chances of them investing upwards of $20 billion to build their share of the Denali Pipeline.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline "good for Canada": N.W.T. premier
Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline good for Canada: N.W.T. premier - Canwest
Can I confess I hardly find this worth mentioning? Of course NWT Premier Floyd Roland supports the MVP. Of course he's trying to drum up support by reminding us of benefits like $808 million in tax revenue, and 200,000 person-years of employment. Of course he's fear-mongering with the threat of being overtaken by the Alaska line (which seems somewhat unlikely, to be honest).
About as surprising as... sunrise?
Can I confess I hardly find this worth mentioning? Of course NWT Premier Floyd Roland supports the MVP. Of course he's trying to drum up support by reminding us of benefits like $808 million in tax revenue, and 200,000 person-years of employment. Of course he's fear-mongering with the threat of being overtaken by the Alaska line (which seems somewhat unlikely, to be honest).
About as surprising as... sunrise?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
CBC News - North - Only 10 Mackenzie pipeline recommendations OKed
CBC News - North - Only 10 Mackenzie pipeline recommendations OKed
This headline's a bit misleading. The Joint Review Panel approved the MVP project, with a list of 176 conditions. As this headline points out, the Canadian and NWT governments have accepted as written only 10 of them, a seemingly tiny fraction.
What the reader discovers in the body of the news item is that 77 other recommendations may be acceptable with modification, and that 61 others are out of the scope of these governments (i.e. they need to be addressed by regulators and proponents).
This headline's a bit misleading. The Joint Review Panel approved the MVP project, with a list of 176 conditions. As this headline points out, the Canadian and NWT governments have accepted as written only 10 of them, a seemingly tiny fraction.
What the reader discovers in the body of the news item is that 77 other recommendations may be acceptable with modification, and that 61 others are out of the scope of these governments (i.e. they need to be addressed by regulators and proponents).
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Did he say that out loud?
CBC News - North - N.W.T. gas could gain from U.S. spill: minister
I don't know what to think of this one. NWT Industry Minister Bob McLeod has suggested that the looming eco-disaster in the Gulf of Mexico could actually be good for the MVP project.
And, yes, he's likely right. A few weeks ago, Barack Obama announced new regulations to expand offshore drilling in US waters. In the wake of BP's tragic accident, this proposal is now pretty much "dead in the water", if you can pardon the pun. The energy from that anticipated drilling will have to come from somewhere. Even if the demand remains high for oil, that only puts more pressure on producers to develop more of the Athabasca Oil Sands.
Even so, this seems a little opportunistic, at least at this juncture, but when an Industry Minister attends an industry conference (in this case, the Offshore Energy Technology Conference in Houston), I guess he has to say something.
***
I haven't mentioned the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon well, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana in this blog, because I want to maintain a tight focus on the two pending northern pipeline projects. However, this event will be something of a game-changer and it's going to have an impact on these projects. So, since Bob McLeod brings it up, it's time for me to weigh in...
Right now, I'm praying that BP's rather daring scheme to place a heavy "cap" over the spewing well works. The idea is interesting: place a big, heavy box over the wellhead, and pump the watery oil in the box up to the surface where it will be collected in boats. Who knows, it should even be refinable. This is one of those things that hasn't really been done before, and at this point it's the only hope that this oil slick doesn't get a LOT bigger.
Regardless of whether this works or not, there's already a huge slick making its way toward land. It's bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, and threatens an absolutely massive stretch of coastline in the Southern US, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The optics are going to be impossible to miss. As of now, this shows the potential of being an ecological disaster of historical proportions.
What are the implications? Some of them are already being seen. It's turning the legislative agenda in Washington upside down as we speak, as lawmakers there prepare to consider new energy policy later this year. Voters will be very vocal in their opposition to any expansion of offshore drilling. That doesn't mean new drilling won't be permitted at all, but it's safe to say even now that there will be much less than previously expected.
So, the immediate fallout is a drastically slower expansion of offshore drilling in the US. That's a safe bet. Further out is a little murkier, but I think there are a few assumptions we can safely make. First, the taste for oil in general is going to decline, and the demand for gas could grow even faster. Even if oil consumption isn't affected, there will be more reliance on non-aquatic sources. Like the Oil Sands. All the while, conventional gas production keeps declining across North America, even in the wake of significant Shale Formation discoveries.
Yes, the future does look good for natural gas, and northern pipelines as a result, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about the circumstances.
I don't know what to think of this one. NWT Industry Minister Bob McLeod has suggested that the looming eco-disaster in the Gulf of Mexico could actually be good for the MVP project.
And, yes, he's likely right. A few weeks ago, Barack Obama announced new regulations to expand offshore drilling in US waters. In the wake of BP's tragic accident, this proposal is now pretty much "dead in the water", if you can pardon the pun. The energy from that anticipated drilling will have to come from somewhere. Even if the demand remains high for oil, that only puts more pressure on producers to develop more of the Athabasca Oil Sands.
Even so, this seems a little opportunistic, at least at this juncture, but when an Industry Minister attends an industry conference (in this case, the Offshore Energy Technology Conference in Houston), I guess he has to say something.
***
I haven't mentioned the April 20 explosion of BP's Deepwater Horizon well, 50 miles off the coast of Louisiana in this blog, because I want to maintain a tight focus on the two pending northern pipeline projects. However, this event will be something of a game-changer and it's going to have an impact on these projects. So, since Bob McLeod brings it up, it's time for me to weigh in...
Right now, I'm praying that BP's rather daring scheme to place a heavy "cap" over the spewing well works. The idea is interesting: place a big, heavy box over the wellhead, and pump the watery oil in the box up to the surface where it will be collected in boats. Who knows, it should even be refinable. This is one of those things that hasn't really been done before, and at this point it's the only hope that this oil slick doesn't get a LOT bigger.
Regardless of whether this works or not, there's already a huge slick making its way toward land. It's bigger than the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989, and threatens an absolutely massive stretch of coastline in the Southern US, Mexico, and the Caribbean. The optics are going to be impossible to miss. As of now, this shows the potential of being an ecological disaster of historical proportions.
What are the implications? Some of them are already being seen. It's turning the legislative agenda in Washington upside down as we speak, as lawmakers there prepare to consider new energy policy later this year. Voters will be very vocal in their opposition to any expansion of offshore drilling. That doesn't mean new drilling won't be permitted at all, but it's safe to say even now that there will be much less than previously expected.
So, the immediate fallout is a drastically slower expansion of offshore drilling in the US. That's a safe bet. Further out is a little murkier, but I think there are a few assumptions we can safely make. First, the taste for oil in general is going to decline, and the demand for gas could grow even faster. Even if oil consumption isn't affected, there will be more reliance on non-aquatic sources. Like the Oil Sands. All the while, conventional gas production keeps declining across North America, even in the wake of significant Shale Formation discoveries.
Yes, the future does look good for natural gas, and northern pipelines as a result, but that doesn't mean I'm happy about the circumstances.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Who says these projects aren't moving?
TransCanada assesses Alaska pipeline interest - CBC News
It's on, baby! TC's Open Season kicked off yesterday, the next regulatory step in the long saga that is the Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline.
"What's an 'Open Season'?" you ask? It's a period of time where TransCanada takes submissions from shippers interested in sending gas down its line after it's built. The Open Season helps determine the economic viability of the project, a mandatory step in getting approval for the project from US federal regulators.
Fingers crossed!!
It's on, baby! TC's Open Season kicked off yesterday, the next regulatory step in the long saga that is the Alaska Highway Natural Gas Pipeline.
"What's an 'Open Season'?" you ask? It's a period of time where TransCanada takes submissions from shippers interested in sending gas down its line after it's built. The Open Season helps determine the economic viability of the project, a mandatory step in getting approval for the project from US federal regulators.
Fingers crossed!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)