[lenaitch]

Isn’t Manitoba and the northern FN opposed? Though I suppose money talks when it comes to pipelines and LNG, except apparently in Quebec?

The Manitoba government has been putting money into upgrade the port and rail line so I will guess they support it. I haven't seen anything one way or the other from any FN group. The only negative voices I'm hearing are from those who want public money to flow to their proposal for a greenfield new port at the mouth of the Nelson River.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

The Manitoba government has been putting money into upgrade the port and rail line so I will guess they support it. I haven't seen anything one way or the other from any FN group. The only negative voices I'm hearing are from those who want public money to flow to their proposal for a greenfield new port at the mouth of the Nelson River.

Right on queue there is an article in the Globe & Mail about this.

Port of Churchill sees renewed interest as Canada looks to diversify trade routes

The port is seen as a potential major export point for critical minerals that are in high demand globally

www.theglobeandmail.com

Mr. Prentice said bigger investments may be necessary in shoring up the railway’s northernmost segment.
“If we’re going to actually be serious with the Port of Churchill, at some point in time I believe we’re going to have to look at relocating that part of the rail line further west onto the rocks,” he said.
A big chunk of the railway was washed out by flooding in 2017, cutting off a vital transportation link for the 900 people who live in Churchill, which is inaccessible by road. At the time, it was owned by private U.S. firm OmniTRAX.
Mr. Avery said the railway suffered from a lack of investment from its previous owner, but now it’s run and maintained by the very people who rely on it.
“Now we’re fully Canadian-owned and fully Indigenous-owned, and we are making up for decades of neglect,” he said.
Being in charge of the port instills a sense of pride, Churchill Mayor Michael Spence, a member of York Factory First Nation, said at the February funding announcement.
“Northern communities fought to control the port and rail line, not just for Manitoba, but for Canada,” he said.
“There was a lot of interest when the port came up for sale, especially from foreign buyers in the north. We said no, not anymore. We’re going to take control of these assets and we’re going to secure a future.”

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1919416938184294744

Doug Ford is calling on the Feds to build a deep-sea port on James Bay.

 

[afransen]

Has there been any hint as to what the 'dozens of new stations' will be as part of the GO 2.0 plan?

I'm a bit annoyed that they announced 'GO 2.0' but haven't given any real detail on it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

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'.

With LNG exports about to start from BC, the market for a LNG terminal from Churchill is reduced to pretty much only Europe - a market that’s not clamouring for Canadian natural gas.

As the U.S. trade war escalates, LNG Canada is poised to start exports to Asia

The Canadian energy industry is looking to LNG Canada as a promising sign that the country is capable of shipping its resources to new markets and reducing its U.S. economic dependence

www.theglobeandmail.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/AibWp

 

[lenaitch]

With LNG exports about to start from BC, the market for a LNG terminal from Churchill is reduced to pretty much only Europe - a market that’s not clamouring for Canadian natural gas.

As the U.S. trade war escalates, LNG Canada is poised to start exports to Asia

The Canadian energy industry is looking to LNG Canada as a promising sign that the country is capable of shipping its resources to new markets and reducing its U.S. economic dependence

www.theglobeandmail.com

Paywall free: https://archive.is/AibWp

I thought they were and we (Trudeau) rebuffed them, particularly when the desire was to get off Russian gas. Regardless. People want to build a terminal at the existing port of Churchill; a group wants to greenfield one at Port Nelson MB, people (Ford?) say we should build one near Moosonee and still others hope Quebec will relent and allow one to be built on the east coast. The might be a market for one but I doubt there is a market for several.

I'll betcha if Quebec was rich in gas they would be more amenable to pipelines.

 

[Admiral Beez]

I thought they were and we (Trudeau) rebuffed them, particularly when the desire was to get off Russian gas. Regardless. People want to build a terminal at the existing port of Churchill; a group wants to greenfield one at Port Nelson MB, people (Ford?) say we should build one near Moosonee and still others hope Quebec will relent and allow one to be built on the east coast. The might be a market for one but I doubt there is a market for several.

I'll betcha if Quebec was rich in gas they would be more amenable to pipelines.

What about a LNG terminal at Thunder Bay?

 

[lenaitch]

What about a LNG terminal at Thunder Bay?

It could only be 'seaway max' in dimensions. I get the sense that most trans-oceanic LNG ships are much larger. A small, bespoke fleet might not be economical.

 

[guavadelic]

I'll betcha if Quebec was rich in gas they would be more amenable to pipelines.

I'm surprised Quebec isn't more open to supplying France, its close cultural ally, with alternatives to Russian gas.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I'm surprised Quebec isn't more open to supplying France, its close cultural ally, with alternatives to Russian gas.

France has adequate supply thanks to nuclear and renewable electricity.

 

[Northern Light]

I'll betcha if Quebec was rich in gas they would be more amenable to pipelines.

First point, the evidence suggests than Quebecers and the government of Quebec are in fact open to a pipeline at this point. Whether that rubber meets the proverbial road, TBD, but I think there is a window.

Second.........Alberta, as much as Quebec is the king of self-interest in this country, though all provinces have that in varying degrees, not unlike people. Would Albertans be pro-pipeline if it wasn't to their direct benefit in employment, income and royalties?

Why not look south to a generally pro-capitalist, pro-free market, pro-fossil fuel area of the U.S. where Keystone pipeline would cross.........an area of largely 'red states'.........where opposition to keystone has sometimes been fever pitched.

Could it be that the those areas who would see only limited construction employment and no on-going benefit from producing or refining.........manage to place greater priority on the environment, safety and the hassles of construction...when there really isn't an obvious benefit counter-balancing that?

Its not unique to Quebec.

 

[Northern Light]

I thought they were and we (Trudeau) rebuffed them, particularly when the desire was to get off Russian gas.

France has adequate supply thanks to nuclear and renewable electricity.

France is a significant importer of LNG....... as are Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium.

The single largest supplier of LNG to Europe is now the U.S. (45% market share)

Followed by Russia, Norway, Qatar and Algeria are all material suppliers of either pipeline or LNG Nat. Gas.

 

[lenaitch]

First point, the evidence suggests than Quebecers and the government of Quebec are in fact open to a pipeline at this point. Whether that rubber meets the proverbial road, TBD, but I think there is a window.

Second.........Alberta, as much as Quebec is the king of self-interest in this country, though all provinces have that in varying degrees, not unlike people. Would Albertans be pro-pipeline if they it wasn't to their direct benefit in employment, income and royalties?

Why not look south to a generally pro-capitalist, pro-free market, pro-fossil fuel area of the U.S. where Keystone pipeline would cross.........an area of largely 'red states'.........where opposition to keystone has sometimes been fever pitched.

Could it be that the those areas who would see only limited construction employment and no on-going benefit from producing or refining.........manage to place greater priority on the environment, safety and the hassles of construction...when there really isn't an obvious benefit counter-balancing that?

Its not unique to Quebec.

I don't anybody said it was unique to Quebec, just that in the face of improving east-west commerce and market diversity away from the US, their opening position was 'no'. You are right that there has been some softening to that stance. It remains to be seen if that hole in the clouds stays open.

Your are probably correct that if Manitoba or Saskatchewan was rich in petroleum and Alberta was not, they would probably be less thrilled about a pipeline. Unless you directly benefit from it, nobody really 'wants' a pipeline in their backyard. NIMBY-ism takes on all forms.

There are also 'degrees' of pipeline. Gas transmission has a pretty solid track record but diluted tar sands crude is known to be abrasive, corrosive and somewhat unstable and has a bad reputation (similar to Bakken crude out of the Dakotas).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Second.........Alberta, as much as Quebec is the king of self-interest in this country, though all provinces have that in varying degrees, not unlike people. Would Albertans be pro-pipeline if it wasn't to their direct benefit in employment, income and royalties?

Ontario is pro pipeline, even though we’d just be a transit and shipping point for Alberta NG, same as Quebec would be.

 

[Northern Light]

Ontario is pro pipeline, even though we’d just be a transit and shipping point for Alberta NG, same as Quebec would be.

We might be self-interested.............where exactly are the banks who are going to finance this based? Oh right.

They are also the leading underwriters in the Canadian energy space.