Also as a Canadian I'm a little baffled why we should be prioritizing building pipelines that run north to south to export our oil when we can run pipelines east to west to supply our own people and export on our own shores.
Why do you think this is not already the case? Just curious, because it seems like many people in my birth province of Alberta aren't aware that we already have these pipelines, and think that people here in Ontario and in Quebec are burning Saudi oil.
Line 9 runs practically right behind my house, and since it was reversed some years ago it feeds facilities in Ontario (and Quebec) with Alberta oil. Line 5 runs under the great lakes, all the way from western Canada to refineries in Sarnia (and is currently under threat from Mich. governor, but that's a separate topic)
90ish percent of Ontario's oil consumption is domestic oil depending on time of year and so on. The remainder is mostly from the US. Small % from middle east.
Oil from Alberta makes it all the way to refineries near Montreal. Last I looked 70% of Quebec's oil is domestic origin.
Politicians in Alberta have become masters of ignoring this key fact in their rabble rousing.
Could capacity be increased? Maybe. Is it strictly necessary? I don't know. Should we be reducing consumption anyways? Yes.
See map here, on Enbridge's website, zoom in to Ontario:
>Because Quebec is powered by hydro and doesn't need oil and doesn't want the pipeline going east because they sell power.
Quebec uses tons of oil every day, whenever they fill up their cars. Most of it comes from Saudi Arabia, brought into the Irving Refinery in New Brunswick. Irving would use Canadian oil if they could get it.
Sorry but this is factually incorrect. The majority of Quebec's oil is from Alberta, with some small amount being from the US and only a tiny portion coming from the Irving refinery.
"Line 9 has been delivering crude oil from Sarnia, Ontario to Montreal since its reversal became operational in December 2015. The line has a capacity of 300 Mb/d and transports a combination of oil from western Canada and the U.S. Midwest.
In 2018, deliveries of imported and eastern Canadian crude oil on the Portland-Montreal Pipeline fell to an average 2.5 Mb/d, less than 1% of its capacity." (italics mine)
That being said, GPP is partially correct: Quebec is the highest electricity producer and consumer in Canada, but it's almost entirely hydroelectric and their electricity is cheap. "Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita."
With the highest electric vehicle uptake in the country, and the lowest greenhouse gas emissions, seems Quebec has the right to be smug (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnFAAdOBB1c)
Anyways, please don't spread political disinformation. Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it.
>Quebec’s emissions per capita are the lowest in Canada at 9.4 tonnes CO2e – 52% below the Canadian average of 19.6 tonnes per capita."
Only because they don't count any emissions that come from Hydro. We have no idea what they actually producing because they don't test any of the dam reservoirs for methane emissions.
>Quebec is not a significant consumer of Saudi oil, despite what Jason Kenney has to say about it.
Not my province, so I don't consume anything he says. Considering the biggest refinery in Quebec (Valero refinery in Levis, 265M barrels/day) refines sweet crude, I sincerely doubt it's getting the majority of it's oil from Alberta.
As a non-Albertan, I'm baffled by why Alberta thinks that building east-to-west pipelines to prop up their economy, while saddling their neighbours with all the risks is good policy.
I mean, I understand that may be a good policy for an Alberta, but there's no reason why anyone else should think it's a good policy for them.
Alberta mines & refines oil that every other province uses, and is saddled with all the pollution from that. Why should Alberta prop up the economies of all the other provinces and have to deal with the actual consequences of that?
Huh? No. The refining of Alberta oil generally happens elsewhere. The Albertan oil consumed in Ontario and Quebec is refined in Sarnia and the port of Montreal, respectively. Comes in via line 9 and is refined in province.
The chemical industry pollution in Sarnia is pretty bad from what I hear.
Largest refineries in Canada that refine Canadian crude are in Alberta, Imperial's 191M barrels/day and Suncor's 142M barrels/day, both in Edmonton and then you can add on Fort Saskatchewan's 100M barrels/day, just outside of Edmonton. There's a west coast city that is nearly entirely dependent on Albertan crude oil & refining.
Sarnia is refining an already upgraded bitumen though, so it's only getting half of the garbage. Also Line 9 goes from Sarnia to Montreal, Enbridge Mainline goes from Alberta to Sarnia.
False dichotomy. It's not a choice between pipeline and rail, it's a choice between pipeline, rail, and nothing. Since its neighbours receive nothing but liabilities, regardless of which option is taken, I'll go with nothing.
Tar sands oil is an endless, pointless jobs program. It's barely afloat when oil prices are high, and a rock around the neck of the Canadian economy, and GHG commitments when they aren't. I'm not interested in drastically cutting back on my energy usage, to balance the books with one of the dirtiest fuel producers in the world.
Pipelines do nothing for me, but encourage this economically-destructive industry to expand. For every dollar of wealth it generates, it destroys a dollar and a dime.
Absolutely, 100%. And the distortions that "rip and ship" makes in the economy aren't worth it when oil prices are high. It makes some people rich but most of us just suffer net effects and I'm not even talking about climate change.
I've lived in Edmonton during oil-boom times, and during not-oil-boom times.. and the corrosive effect of the boom and bust cycle on the Albertan economy, it's not pretty.
And a high per-barrel price in Alberta does nothing good for manufacturing in the rest of the country, dragging our dollar up and making our exports less attractive and the costs of production higher. When the dollar is high also makes my labour as a software engineer more expensive, without much benefit to me.
Ah well, enough ranting, off to go pick up sushi in my electric car and I'm not even joking.
I'm looking at it through a lens of least impact overall and totally agree about the tar sands. Trucking is wasteful, shipping and trucking don't have a very good ecological safety record. A good step in reducing environmental effects of oil is to stop exporting it as that just moves the problem elsewhere. Being self sufficient and weaning ourselves off of oil & gas is a step in that direction.
We need to fix the problems at home before telling others what to do.
Given that break even for the tar sands has been in the $100/barrel range only recently (with process upgrades) may be as low as $40 (very optimistic in my books). It's certainly appears to need subsidies to survive.
Typically when oil prices drop (they were <$40 in early 2020), the oil sands companies put production on standby. It's like most oil exploration - it's either feast or famine depending on global prices.
