CKA Forums
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

Pipeline would suck an estimated 18000 jobs from Canada
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/business-f29/pipeline-would-suck-an-estimated-18000-jobs-from-canada-t17634.html
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Ripcat [ Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Pipeline would suck an estimated 18000 jobs from Canada

Keystone pipeline to U.S. would mean thousands of jobs lost
20:31:34 EDT Sep 13, 2006
Canadian Press: JAMES STEVENSON

CALGARY (CP) - The planned Keystone heavy oil pipeline would suck thousands of Canadian energy sector jobs down to refineries in the U.S. Midwest, along with the millions of barrels of crude it is expected to ship, a major union said Wednesday.

Canada will lose 18,000 new jobs that could be created in the energy sector if the crude was processed domestically instead of exported, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada said in a brief filed with the National Energy Board ahead of the hearings into the project next month

In June, Calgary-based TransCanada Corp. (TSX:TRP) filed for regulatory approval of its US$2.1-billion plan to convert some of its Canadian natural gas mainline pipeline capacity and build some new adjoining lines to carry oilsands crude from northern Alberta into the U.S. Midwest.

"As (former Alberta Premier) Peter Lougheed and others have already said, it is in the interests of Canada as a whole to create a diverse resource economy rather than simply a large extraction industry," union president Brian Payne said in a release Wednesday.

"The National Energy Board needs to take that into consideration when making decisions of this nature."

The union said its energy board brief is based on economic models created by Ottawa-based consulting firm Informetrica.

An Informetrica report said that expanding the Canadian refining industry to process the 400,000 barrels per day of heavy oil that the Keystone pipeline plans to handle "would add approximately 18,000 jobs per year to the Canadian economy as compared to the additional jobs generated by export of the crude," said the union.

TransCanada spokeswoman Sheila Shapiro said she can't comment on specifics due to the regulatory process currently underway.

Generally speaking, however, TransCanada is shipping what oilsands producers are asking for, she said.

"The upgrading decisions are determined by the marketplace - as in, by the shippers," she said. "As would be the case with all export crude-oil pipelines."

National Energy Board hearings on the Keystone plan are set to begin Oct. 23 in Calgary.

Permission to switch the lines from gas to oil is the first of two major Canadian regulatory hurdles facing TransCanada before it builds the Keystone project.

The 2,960-kilometre line would be capable of carrying 435,000 barrels per day of crude oil from the oil hub at Hardisty in central Alberta to U.S. Midwest markets at Wood River and Patoka, Ill., near Chicago.

Keystone is just one of numerous proposals for new oil pipelines out of Canada's oilsands, where production is expected to triple over the next decade from its current one million barrels a day.


TransCanada's crosstown rival, Enbridge Inc. (TSX:ENB) currently has $13-billion worth of new pipeline plans that would carry oilsands crude to new refining hubs throughout the U.S., as well as to new markets in Asia.

Houston-based Kinder Morgan Inc. (NYSE:KMI), which gained a big piece of the Canadian oil pipeline market with its US$5.9-billion acquisition of Vancouver-based Terasen last August, also has major expansion plans.

Earlier this year, TransCanada said it had secured long-term contracts to move 340,000 barrels a day, or 78 per cent of Keystone's planned capacity.

Last November, the company signed a deal with ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP), committing the Houston-based company as a major shipper on Keystone and giving it the option to acquire a 50 per cent stake in the project.

But pipeline analysts have predicted that getting regulatory approvals to switch natural gas pipeline capacity to oil could be challenging for TransCanada.

On the Toronto stock market Wednesday, TransCanada stock rose 57 cents to $35.62 in trading of nearly 1.2 million shares.

Link

Author:  Banff [ Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

aha :roll:

I'd say Canada is more likely to give up the 18000 jobs than worry about its own future . Frightening thought but it shows .

Author:  Banff [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Mr_Canada wrote:
Damn Yanks! :x


maybe , but I'm crossed between damn Canadians or damn Yanks . I just think most Canadians just don't get it when it comes to what real sovereignty means or is .

Author:  Elvis [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:43 am ]
Post subject: 

Bof :roll: this is just the normal conscequence when we elect politician who have there pocket fill by Corporation.

Yeah think big! les américans eux ils l'ont l'affaires!

Author:  Ripcat [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Elvis wrote:
Bof :roll: this is just the normal conscequence when we elect politician who have there pocket fill by Corporation.


Yep, I think we have gone too far and now it is way to easy for us to lose control of our resources to the highest bidder. Of course, that highest bidder isn't paying us, they are paying to the company that previously owned the rights to the resource.

Author:  Banff [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:26 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ripcat wrote:
Elvis wrote:
Bof :roll: this is just the normal conscequence when we elect politician who have there pocket fill by Corporation.


Yep, I think we have gone too far and now it is way to easy for us to lose control of our resources to the highest bidder. Of course, that highest bidder isn't paying us, they are paying to the company that previously owned the rights to the resource.


Didn't Bruce Cochburn sing If I had a ....
The whole issue is maddening . I say develop what we need and progress as we need it but kill the pipeline concept . If they want it (raw)they can pick it by truck at the border :lol:

Author:  Ripcat [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:44 pm ]
Post subject: 

Banff wrote:
Ripcat wrote:
Elvis wrote:
Bof :roll: this is just the normal conscequence when we elect politician who have there pocket fill by Corporation.


Yep, I think we have gone too far and now it is way to easy for us to lose control of our resources to the highest bidder. Of course, that highest bidder isn't paying us, they are paying to the company that previously owned the rights to the resource.


Didn't Bruce Cochburn sing If I had a ....
The whole issue is maddening . I say develop what we need and progress as we need it but kill the pipeline concept . If they want it (raw)they can pick it by truck at the border :lol:


Well, if we put enough export tax on raw resources we would generate more income and create more refining jobs here in Canada. If it was cheaper to refine the oil in Canada they wouldn't need a pipeline for the crude and we'd gladly help build a pipeline for the refined gas to get it to our valued customers in the US.

Author:  Elvis [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 5:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ripcat wrote
Quote:
Well, if we put enough export tax on raw resources we would generate more income and create more refining jobs here in Canada. If it was cheaper to refine the oil in Canada they wouldn't need a pipeline for the crude and we'd gladly help build a pipeline for the refined gas to get it to our valued customers in the US.


In your dream maybe but we can't put export taxes on export ressource. Remember Canada is a signatary of NAFTA. The only thing the Canadian government can do is bloc this project by making it impossible to build the pipeline for Environmental consideration. But that ain't going to hapen.

Author:  Banff [ Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:54 pm ]
Post subject: 

18000 jobs yeah right . If that many went under , there would be piles more behind the scenes to go bye bye , including small to medium sized businesses.

We've allowed this country to become a Camp and we still go at it like we have nothing to lose . I think I'll blame this one on Canadians .Actually forget about Canada , it doesn't really exist .

Author:  Ripcat [ Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:28 am ]
Post subject: 

Pipeline conversion plan draws fire
Energy producers spar over proposal to alter part of gas line to carry crude
DAVE EBNER

CALGARY -- A fight between Calgary's biggest energy companies has erupted over TransCanada Corp.'s proposed Keystone oil pipeline, with EnCana Corp. and Shell Canada Ltd. opposing the plan and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and Suncor Energy Inc. standing in favour.

TransCanada, a natural gas pipeline company, wants to build its $2.1-billion (U.S.) Keystone project to carry additional oil sands production from Alberta to Illinois. The 3,000-kilometre line would involve about 2,100 kilometres of new pipe but the contentious part of the plan is the converting of 860 kilometres of a gas line in Saskatchewan and Manitoba to carry crude.

EnCana, the country's largest gas producer, which also has major oil sands ambitions, has balked, arguing in a submission to the National Energy Board with Shell, Devon Canada Corp. and Nexen Inc., that all of the capacity of the line is still needed for gas.

Continued....

Author:  Ripcat [ Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:31 am ]
Post subject: 

BP to spend heavily in U.S. to handle oil sands crude
Idea stokes speculation about EnCana deal
DAVE EBNER

CALGARY -- BP PLC is making the largest investment to date in U.S. refining capacity to handle Canadian oil sands output, saying yesterday that it is in the final stages of planning for a $3-billion (U.S.) upgrade of its major Whiting refinery near Chicago.

London-based BP -- the only major international oil company without a stake in the Alberta oil sands -- said the investment would increase the Whiting refinery's capacity to handle heavy crude to 350,000 barrels a day from about 85,000 barrels currently. The work is expected to be complete in 2011.

The announcement stoked further speculation that BP will become a partner of Calgary-based EnCana Corp., which hopes to produce 500,000 barrels of oil sands crude a day by 2015, and is close to deals to help process the output.


Continued...

Author:  Maggiemygosh [ Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:29 am ]
Post subject: 

As usual this is Union Rhetoric BS.

Unions think they are in charge but they are not. Unions think they have intelligence but they do not. Unions are coming apart at the seams and the numbers are decreasing which is great.. Union leaders are nothing but greedy pigs and are communistic in nature. They support Terrorist Organizations, do not work hard at all, are so sick every month and are not very good at what they do..

Take a good look at companies that are not unionized and the products they produce is vastly superior to unionized companies. Not only that the non-unionized companies employees are better treated, make a very good salary and they are proud of what they do. Net wise they take home more money than union jerks do and put in a full weeks worth of company time.

In the Auto Industry CAW and UAW is losing big time and it is entirely the unions fault. Thousands of jobs are going down the toilet and rightfully so.

Take a look at Toyota and Honda and soon these two non-unionized companies will be Number One and Two in North America which is great. The number one selling automobile over the past 6 years is the Toyota Camry LE in Canada and the USA. I now own one and it is a great product.

This 18,000 job loss crap is 100% BullShit coming out of the ass of the union heads which is where their heads are, between the cheeks of their ass.

Author:  Ripcat [ Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:07 pm ]
Post subject: 

Maggiemygosh wrote:
As usual this is Union Rhetoric BS.


Hey dumbass, Toyota and Honda pay almost exactly the same as Ford, GM and Chrysler do. Ford and GM's woes have nothing to do with the unions. They stood around for far too long hoping their fortunes would improve.

It's only a matter of time before the union is sinks it teeth into Toyota here in Ontario.

Quote:
This 18,000 job loss crap is 100% BullShit coming out of the ass of the union heads which is where their heads are, between the cheeks of their ass.


Well then, how many jobs would be created if we were to process the estimated 3 million barrels a day of crude from the oil sands here in Canada when the sands are fully developed Mr. Smartypants? How much economic growth would these jobs create for Canada?

Author:  Ripcat [ Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:00 am ]
Post subject: 

I see Maggie hasn't been able to respond with any substance....

How about some Conservative rhetoric Maggie.....

Alberta Tory decries raw bitumen exports
DAVE EBNER

Jim Dinning, the front-runner to become Alberta's next premier, says raw oil sands crude shouldn't be shipped to the United States for processing, a statement made even as the vast majority of the oil is set to be processed in the province. Mr. Dinning made his comments in a campaign speech in Edmonton yesterday. "It concerns me when I hear companies planning to ship more of our raw resources [bitumen] for refining in the United States," Mr. Dinning said. "I believe that if you mine it here, you upgrade it here." BP PLC last week said it plans to spend $3-billion (U.S.) at its Chicago-area refinery to increase its ability to handle raw oil sands output to 350,000 barrels in 2011 from about 85,000 currently. There is capacity to produce 800,000 barrels a day of synthetic oil in Alberta right now -- using almost all of the bitumen output -- and more than two million more daily barrels of capacity are under development.

Link -- Oh lookie, a link.....


And from Jim Dinnings website, jimdinning.ca:
Quote:
First, upgrade it here. Create the value-added right here, where the raw resource is mined, or grown, or harvested. These resources belong to us.


And from his speech of September 26, 2006,the speech:
Quote:
Upgrade it here

Frankly, it concerns me when I hear companies planning to ship more of our raw resources for refining in the United States. I believe that if you mine it here, you upgrade it here. It’s Albertans’ resource and Albertans and our Party members in particular have said to me: create more value here in Alberta. And if now isn’t the right time to build those plants here in Alberta, we can wait. I want future oil sands development to demonstrate how upgrading will be done in Alberta.

Author:  ziggy [ Thu Sep 28, 2006 6:18 am ]
Post subject:  Damn Yanks

Banff wrote:
Mr_Canada wrote:
Damn Yanks! :x


maybe , but I'm crossed between damn Canadians or damn Yanks . I just think most Canadians just don't get it when it comes to what real sovereignty means or is .


You may want to check out who owns some of the players in the oil and gas sector in Alberta.

I can see Encanna getting pissed,they would rather have their gas flowing as it has and not having thier capacity cut.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©