Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Energy

Oil tankers in Vancouver are loading plenty, but they can load even more

Published

7 minute read

From Resource Works

Despite years of protest, ballooning costs, and political hurdles, the federally funded TMX pipeline expansion has become a strategic economic success story for Canada.

The federally funded expansion of the Trans Mountain oil pipeline from Alberta to tidewater at Burnaby has been much attacked by critics, but has quickly turned into a gold-star success story.

The 980-km expansion, known as TMX, opened in May 2024, almost tripling the capacity of the original (1953) Trans Mountain Pipeline. Since then, TMX has enabled major expansion of our crude oil exports to American and Asian buyers.

It is, says Trans Mountain CEO Mark Maki, “one of the most strategic investments Canada has ever made,” providing Canada with new trading options to Pacific Rim nations in the face of Donald Trump’s tariffs, and bringing in billions in new revenues.

Since opening on May 1, 2024, Trans Mountain has sent half of its tanker shipments to countries other than the US, and half to refineries on the US west coast.

Alberta Central chief economist Charles St-Arnaud said in a report earlier this year that TMX had brought in an extra $10 billion in revenues in 2024, equivalent to “adding a thirteenth month of production to the year.”

The export picture would be even brighter if the Port of Vancouver could accommodate larger loads in departing oil tankers, and that now is being addressed by both federal and provincial governments.

Right now, 245-metre-long Aframax-size tankers can handle up to 120,000 tonnes of oil. But under our port restrictions and limited depths of water in Burrard Inlet, they usually load only up to 96,000 tonnes.

In the BC legislature, Gavin Dew, Conservative MLA for Kelowna-Mission and the Opposition critic for jobs, economic development and innovation, asked if BC and the new federal government are indeed supporting dredging Burrard Inlet to allow fully laden Aframax oil tankers.

The simple reply from Adrian Dix, BC’s minister of energy and climate solutions: “Yes.”

Dix added later in an interview that the idea most recently came from Prime Minister Mark Carney. “Broadly, the premier and us have indicated our support for it,” Dix said.

No plan or timing has yet been announced.

While fully loaded Aframax tankers would carry more oil, they still have to meet requirements that include these: All tankers calling at the Westridge Marine Terminal must first be pre-screened by Trans Mountain to ensure criteria are met for safety and reliability; They must be double-hulled, and have segregated internal cargo tanks; They must have two radar systems in working order, one of them being a specialized collision-avoidance radar. For loading, a containment boom is deployed to enclose the tanker and its berth while loading. The tankers are escorted by tugs, and carry a fully qualified and licensed marine pilot.

There are also upgraded emergency facilities to cope with any spill, but Trans Mountain notes that there has not been a single oil spill from one of its tankers since the original pipeline opened in 1956.

The terminal now can handle some 34 tankers a month.

While a success story now, the TMX expansion went through a lot of pain, protest, obstruction, money, and red tape to get there.

The expansion was first proposed in 2012 by the Canadian division of US pipeline giant Kinder Morgan Inc., which bought the original Trans Mountain pipeline in 2005. It applied in December 2013 for federal approval of expansion, and estimated the cost at $5.4 billion.

The expansion proposal then ran into endless protests, opposition from the BC government (then-premier John Horgan promised to use “every tool in the toolbox” to stop the expansion), and a federal approval process that took almost three years of red tape.

Ottawa’s approval finally came with 157 conditions, and BC’s “toolbox” now included restrictions on any increase in diluted bitumen shipments pending further studies.

By 2018, Kinder Morgan Canada said estimated costs had risen to $7.4 billion, and the company began to send up distress signals.

Ottawa then bought TMX from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion, calling the purchase “a serious and necessary investment made in the national interest.”

The feds added: “The completion of this important infrastructure project is making Canada and the Canadian economy more resilient by diversifying global market access for our resources.”

Construction began in the Edmonton area in November 2019. By 2020, though, Trans Mountain said the cost of the expansion had risen to $12.6 billion, and in 2022 the cost was estimated at $21.4 billion, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic among the reasons. In March 2023, Trans Mountain put the cost at $30.9 billion.

Some of the benefits listed by Ottawa: Opening new markets for Canadian energy exports, reducing our reliance on a single customer, and ensuring that Canada receives fair market value for its resources while maintaining the highest environmental standards; Significantly increasing the royalties and tax revenues that all levels of government receive: According to an independent study, TMX is expected to add $9.2 billion in GDP and $2.8 billion in tax revenues between 2024 and 2043; Contributing to global and regional energy security by providing a secure, long-term supply of energy; Creating economic benefits for many Indigenous groups through contracting, financial compensation, and employment and training opportunities.

But Ottawa has said all along that it would not own the pipeline forever, and that at some point it will divest itself of ownership, and make at least partial ownership available to Indigenous groups.

Trans Mountain CEO Mark Maki now wonders if the feds might postpone that divestment, particularly if they decide TMX shouldn’t be the last oil export pipeline built in Canada.

We await word from the new federal government on its plans.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Energy

China undermining American energy independence, report says

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

The Chinese Communist Party is exploiting the left’s green energy movement to hurt American energy independence, according to a new report from State Armor.

Michael Lucci, founder and CEO of State Armor, says the report shows how Energy Foundation China funds green energy initiatives that make America more reliant on China, especially on technology with known vulnerabilities.

“Our report exposes how Energy Foundation China functions not as an independent nonprofit, but as a vehicle advancing the strategic interests of the Chinese Communist Party by funding U.S. green energy initiatives to shift American supply chains toward Beijing and undermine our energy security,” Lucci said in a statement before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee’s hearing on Wednesday titled “Enter the Dragon – China and the Left’s Lawfare Against American Energy Dominance.”

Lucci said the group’s operations represent a textbook example of Chinese influence in America.

“This is a very good example of how the Chinese Communist Party operates influence operations within the United States. I would actually describe it as a perfect case study from their perspective,” he told The Center Square in a phone interview. “They’re using American money to leverage American policy changes that make the American energy grid dependent upon China.”

Lucci said one of the most concerning findings is that China-backed technology entering the U.S. power grid includes components with “undisclosed back doors” – posing a direct threat to the power grid.

“These are not actually green tech technologies. They’re red technologies,” he said. “We are finding – and this is open-source news reporting – they have undisclosed back doors in them. They’re described in a Reuters article as rogue communication devices… another way to describe that is kill switches.”

Lucci said China exploits American political divisions on energy policy to insert these technologies under the guise of environmental progress.

“Yes, and it’s very crafty,” he said. “We are not addressing the fact that these green technologies are red. Technologies controlled by the Communist Party of China should be out of the question.”

Although Lucci sees a future for carbon-free energy sources in the United States – particularly nuclear and solar energy – he doesn’t think the country should use technology from a foreign adversary to do it.

“It cannot be Chinese solar inverters that are reported in Reuters six weeks ago as having undisclosed back doors,” he said. “It cannot be Chinese batteries going into the grid … that allow them to sabotage our grid.”

Lucci said energy is a national security issue, and the United States is in a far better position to achieve energy independence than China.

“We are luckily endowed with energy independence if we choose to have it. China is not endowed with that luxury,” he said. “They’re poor in natural resources. We’re very well endowed – one of the best – with natural resources for energy production.”

He said that’s why China continues to build coal plants – and some of that coal comes from Australia – while pushing the United States to use solar energy.

“It’s very foolish of us to just make ourselves dependent on their technologies that we don’t need, and which are coming with embedded back doors that give them actual control over our energy grid,” he said.

Lucci says lawmakers at both the state and federal levels need to respond to this threat quickly.

“The executive branch should look at whether Energy Foundation China is operating as an unregistered foreign agent,” he said. “State attorneys general should be looking at these back doors that are going into our power grid – undisclosed back doors. That’s consumer fraud. That’s a deceptive trade practice.”

Continue Reading

Energy

Carney’s Bill C-5 will likely make things worse—not better

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Niels Veldhuis and Jason Clemens

The Carney government’s signature legislation in its first post-election session of Parliament—Bill C-5, known as the Building Canada Act—recently passed the Senate for final approval, and is now law. It gives the government unprecedented powers and will likely make Canada even less attractive to investment than it is now, making a bad situation even worse.

Over the past 10 years, Canada has increasingly become known as a country that is un-investable, where it’s nearly impossible to get large and important projects, from pipelines to mines, approved. Even simple single-site redevelopment projects can take a decade to receive rezoning approval. It’s one of the primary reasons why Canada has experienced a mass exodus of investment capital, some $387 billion from 2015 to 2023. And from 2014 to 2023, the latest year of comparable data, investment per worker (excluding residential construction and adjusted for inflation) dropped by 19.3 per cent, from $20,310 to $16,386 (in 2017 dollars).

In theory, Bill C-5 will help speed up the approval process for projects deemed to be in the “national interest.” But the cabinet (and in practical terms, the prime minister) will determine the “national interest,” not the private sector. The bill also allows the cabinet to override existing laws, regulations and guidelines to facilitate investment and the building of projects such as pipelines, mines and power transmission lines. At a time when Canada is known for not being able to get large projects done, many are applauding this new approach, and indeed the bill passed with the support of the Opposition Conservatives.

But basically, it will allow the cabinet to go around nearly every existing hurdle impeding or preventing large project developments, and the list of hurdles is extensive: Bill C-69 (which governs the approval process for large infrastructure projects including pipelines), Bill C-48 (which effectively bans oil tankers off the west coast), the federal cap on greenhouse gas emissions for only the oil and gas sector (which effectively means a cap or even reductions in production), a quasi carbon tax on fuel (called the Clean Fuels Standard), and so on.

Bill C-5 will not change any of these problematic laws and regulations. It simply will allow the cabinet to choose when and where they’re applied. This is cronyism at its worst and opens up the Carney government to significant risks of favouritism and even corruption.

Consider firms interested in pursuing large projects. If the bill becomes the law of the land, there won’t be a new, better and more transparent process to follow that improves the general economic environment for all entrepreneurs and businesses. Instead, there will be a cabinet (i.e. politicians) with new extraordinary powers that firms can lobby to convince that their project is in the “national interest.”

Indeed, according to some reports, some senators are referring to Bill C-5 as the “trust me” law, meaning that because there aren’t enough details and guardrails within the legislation, senators who vote in favour are effectively “trusting” Prime Minister Carney and his cabinet to do the right thing, effectively and consistently over time.

Consider the ambiguity in the legislation and how it empowers discretionary decisions by the cabinet. According to the legislation, cabinet “may consider any factor” it “considers relevant, including the extent to which the project can… strengthen Canada’s autonomy, resilience and security” or “provide economic benefits to Canada” or “advance the interests of Indigenous peoples” or “contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.”

With this type of “criteria,” nearly anything cabinet or the prime minister can dream up could be deemed in the “national interest” and therefore provide the prime minister with unprecedented and near unilateral powers.

In the preamble to the legislation, the government said it wants an accelerated approval process, which “enhances regulatory certainty and investor confidence.” In all likelihood, Bill C-5 will do the opposite. It will put more power in the hands of a very few in government, lead to cronyism, risks outright corruption, and make Canada even less attractive to investment.

Continue Reading

Trending

X