News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

kEiThZ said:
I personally don't think we'll see self-driving as Musk envisions (robotaxis) for a very long time. Well beyond 2030. For a whole host of reasons, including regulation. And because we have no way of dealing with all the vehicles with drivers already on the road.

I think a steady slide into increasing automation is far more likely, with lower risk applications first. Maybe something like semis driving the highways unmanned between cities, first. It's not going to be binary, where we suddenly wake up to robotaxis everywhere. I'm looking more for real world applications outside of some geofenced trials as evidence. I don't see much. When I start seeing Walmart or Fedex send semis between Toronto and Montreal on the 401, maybe I'll be able to say we're 5-10 years out from robotaxis hitting the road. At present, I think something basic like that might happen before 2030. Maybe.
Click to expand...
Cruise and Waymo are already in revenue service in specific markets. Scalability is perhaps an issue, but they tech clearly works.

Tusimple is already sending autonomous class 8 trucks on highway runs between depots in the US.

Autonomous Trucks | Self-Driving Truck | Driverless Vehicles

TuSimple builds the world's largest Autonomous Trucks and most advanced Driverless vehicles. Find self-driving freight trucking, Long Haul, Semi-trailer and autopilot systems.
www.tusimple.com www.tusimple.com
 
afransen said:
I wouldn't hold my breath. Even if this is the start of something successful, it is still decades away.
Click to expand...
Decades away? I'm not so sure. Looks like PM Poilievre is going the "drill, baby drill" route and will push to find new markets beyond the USA for Canada's fossil fuels. You don't build pipelines over night, though I expect one decade is enough - unless Metrolinx get's the contract.


Will we see a pipeline across SK, MB, ON and QC to oil tankers docked at Saint John, NB? And new pipelines from AB to BC ports? How about a LNG pipeline and terminal at Churchill, MB? There's big changes coming to the Canadian fossil fuels biz.
kEiThZ said:
I think the end of oil is coming, much faster than most people think. Just look at the bans on gas and diesel cars sprouting everywhere. And since companies will start to adapt well in advance, we could start seeing declining oil sales in the 2030s.
Click to expand...
If we do the above I think Canada's oil (and gas) sales may reach their highest ever in the 2030s. Until they go nuclear, Europe needs to replace Russian oil and gas with something.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
Decades away? I'm not so sure. Looks like PM Poilievre is going the "drill, baby drill" route and will push to find new markets beyond the USA for Canada's fossil fuels. You don't build pipelines over night, though I expect one decade is enough - unless Metrolinx get's the contract.


Will we see a pipeline across SK, MB, ON and QC to oil tankers docked at Saint John, NB? And new pipelines from AB to BC ports? How about a LNG pipeline and terminal at Churchill, MB? There's big changes coming to the Canadian fossil fuels biz.

If we do the above I think Canada's oil (and gas) sales may reach their highest ever in the 2030s. Until they go nuclear, Europe needs to replace Russian oil and gas with something.
Click to expand...
Did you miss what I was referring to? It was the latest bit of nuclear fusion 'progress'. I was not referring to oil and gas exports.

Renewables (wind + solar + batteries) form a price ceiling on fossil fuel energy that is ever decreasing. The biggest risk is losing access to Chinese PV and battery technology.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Will we see a pipeline across SK, MB, ON and QC to oil tankers docked at Saint John, NB?
Click to expand...

Not a chance.

Admiral Beez said:
And new pipelines from AB to BC ports?
Click to expand...

Unlikely.

Admiral Beez said:
How about a LNG pipeline and terminal at Churchill, MB?
Click to expand...

Possibly.

Admiral Beez said:
There's big changes coming to the Canadian fossil fuels biz. If we do the above I think Canada's oil (and gas) sales may reach their highest ever in the 2030s.
Click to expand...

We'll see. Personally, I think the business case has passed on a lot of these. TMX is coming in at $34B. It took 12 years to approve, design and build. Think about that. So if we're talking about building a pipeline today that takes 5-10 years to build and requires another 20-30 years to pay off, you're relying on said pipeline being full well past 2050. At this point, as an investor, you are better on the complete failure of climate policy, the failure of any further improvements in battery tech, AI, etc. Most analysts at major thinktanks (like the IEA), the investment banks, etc. are forecasting peak oil demand between 2030-2035. Only OPEC is saying the world will need more oil in 2050. The oil bros don't want to hear it. But the time to build these pipelines was 20 years ago. Today? It's going to be a tough sell for any private investor. Maybe the industry will succeed in duping the government to spend $100B on pipelines for them.

Gas maybe. And even then, we basically have to assume the Europeans are outright lying about their intent to cut gas consumption. And/or relying on them to break existing contracts. It's at least less of a longshot than oil.

Admiral Beez said:
Until they go nuclear, Europe needs to replace Russian oil and gas with something.
Click to expand...

They are doing this already. With a combination of cutting gas demand and substituting with other suppliers. Notably Qatar. But also the US.
 

We have just one LNG terminal completed this year. Expanding capacity seems like an obvious priority.

How is another question. Dare I say it that these are becoming quite drastic times? Maybe time to dust off the idea of turning the Port of Churchill to an LNG terminal in the short term in lieu of longer-term plans of pipelines to eastern Canada.

news.gov.mb.ca

Province of Manitoba | News Releases | Manitoba Government Invests $36.4 Million in Rail Line and Port Of Churchill to Increase International Trade

Province of Manitoba
news.gov.mb.ca news.gov.mb.ca

“As a maritime province located in the heart of North America, Manitoba is strategically positioned to ship commodities, critical minerals and natural resources,” said Naylor. “Developing the Port of Churchill will advance northern Manitoba’s economy, support trade expansion with Europe and strengthen our Arctic sovereignty as we position Manitoba as a gateway to the Arctic and to the world.”
Click to expand...
 
I was listening to PM Mark Carney's media questions today and he dropped that a deep water port in Churchill and Nunavut was on the cards, alongside with an east-west pipeline.


Timestamp to 13:30.

I imagine that a deep water port to Nunavut would have to refer to Rankin Inlet. Edit: actually listening to a later question, Carney refers to Grays Bay, perhaps in context of mineral extraction. So I imagine Churchill was on mind instead for oil and gas.

1742516486386.png
 
Last edited:
With the money it would take to develop an LNG terminal at Churchill and either the accompanying pipeline or upgrading the rail infrastructure, it would make no sense to consider it as 'temporary'.

I'm a fan of expanding the existing deepwater facilities at Churchill. I'm less enamoured with developing a port at Port Nelson. It is a slightly shorter rail haul and slightly longer sail, but it was abandoned once for shallow approaches and constant silting and I don't think those conditions have improved.

Deepwater ports in the high Arctic are obviously a good idea, but they are extremely costly and serve different needs. The nature of the geography up there means that naturally deep harbours are very few, let alone anywhere near existing communities. The recently-opened deepwater facility at Iqaluit consists of a large, ice-hardened jetty and cost around $85Mn. The deepwater facility at Nanisivik that the military is trying to rehabilitate has been going on since Harper and consumed who know how much.

Ports are for shipping goods in or out. The scattered nature of northern communities limits the ability of any one for being of much use to any other. Certainly, one or two could serve as a redistribution hub for a wider area. They might show some value for resource development but we are a long way off that. Even with that, there is no guarantee that a suitable port facility would be anywhere near the resource site. The Mary River mine on Baffin Island hauls its ore 100km overland to Milne Inlet. Even at that, the harbour is not all that deep and they are currently using small ships to transload to large ships. All that in a 3 month shipping season.
 
Midtown Urbanist said:
I was listening to PM Mark Carney's media questions today and he dropped that a deep water port in Churchill and Nunavut was on the cards, alongside with an east-west pipeline.
Click to expand...
Isn’t Manitoba and the northern FN opposed? Though I suppose money talks when it comes to pipelines and LNG, except apparently in Quebec?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top