CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30650
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:04 pm
 


Title: Cenovus expands rail shipments of oil to avoid pipeline bottleneck
Category: Business
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2013-01-08 14:26:25
Canadian


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:04 pm
 


This has got me thinking, with such a huge differential, wouldn't the US be inclined to NOT build keystone for fear of lowering their prices? The lower the oil prices the less the producers make. As for us, if our oil starts selling for more, will we have to start paying more for fuel and other oil-based products?


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Los Angeles Kings
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4661
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:08 pm
 


I was back in Montana a few weeks ago, and oil trains were a constant sight. Of course trains have higher accident rates than pipelines, often cross rivers and lakes, and sometimes even pass through metropolitan areas. Doesn't make much environmental sense.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 6642
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:20 pm
 


People who think with their hearts and not with their heads are idiots.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 21665
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:29 pm
 


DanSC DanSC:
I was back in Montana a few weeks ago, and oil trains were a constant sight. Of course trains have higher accident rates than pipelines, often cross rivers and lakes, and sometimes even pass through metropolitan areas. Doesn't make much environmental sense.



doesn't amke much sense to me either. Although you only got half the equation in the above note. Risk equals probability x consequence. While the probability of derailment is greater than a pipeline rupture, the consequence is typically less (less prduct spilled).

Still pipelines are the safest. The problem I have with the Enbridge proposal isn't the pipeline, but the tankers plying the Hecate Strait, up the Douglas Channel.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2366
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:32 pm
 


Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:
This has got me thinking, with such a huge differential, wouldn't the US be inclined to NOT build keystone for fear of lowering their prices? The lower the oil prices the less the producers make. As for us, if our oil starts selling for more, will we have to start paying more for fuel and other oil-based products?


It's regional, for all the cheaper oil someone can access another can't get at it. For a perfect game theory play the refiners with access to the cheap oil should try to block it, while those without should try and move it forward. However many of the players at both locations are the same overall player, so overall greater access to a steady supply helps.

As for the local fuel prices, the amount of price depression is held in check by the ability to export to higher fuel cost areas. A refined tank of fuel can be shipped if the price falls far enough so as to be more economical in another market. So for people in some areas of Alberta yes fuel costs might rise. However the planned growth of production is still higher than planned pipeline capacity.

As the price differance grows I would expect more to be shipped by rail, as the rail's ability to ship more cargo isn't maxed.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 6 posts ] 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.