Suncor Energy Inc. T.SU

Yesterday's Trans Mountain Expansion Variance Decision

[Kherson]

Post by Kherson on Dec 06, 2023 2:56am

Trans Mountain Expansion - Variance Application Decision

I had the opportunity to review the Variance Application and the various related documents filed up to the Commission's decision on December 5th. I am appalled with the Canada Energy Regulator's decision to deny the Variance!
In short, it looks to me that the Commission initially had issues with Materials, In-Line Inspection and Trap sites and Land Rights. In my opinion, the Trans Mountain final response filed on November 30th adequately answered any and all questions that the Commission had. 
What the Commision purposely overlooked in this variance application is that Trans Mountain put forward the basic argument that increasing the diameter of the pipeline tunnel from 42" to 48" in the section of the mountain where water flooding has already been proven to be an issue, could result in the project coming to a complete standstill! 
In essence, Trans Mountain was requesting permission to use 30" diameter pipe instead of 36" pipe in the reduced tunnel diameter so as to not require enlarging the present tunnel diameter and risk uncontrollable flooding!
I would hope that all shareholders of Canadian Oil companies take a close look at the material presented in this Variance Application and form their own opinions. 

Kherson

[bttmfischer]

Kherson, whether or not the Commission made the right decision in view of the in situ conditions, the  project managers only have one choice  to set the decision aside. That is, they have to file a request to the Federal Court of Appeals, and ask for PERMISSION TO APPEAL IT. It takes time to unravel these matters, and attorneys love billable hours, and as this project is over budget

[Kherson]

Bttmfischer, you raise a valid point. As of right now though, Trans Mountain can not appeal the decision until the reasons for the decision are released, as stated in the CER Decision notice from December 5th. The optics of this look very bad presently and if Trans Mountain now decides to continue to bore out this pipeline tunnel to the required 48" diameter for the 36" diameter pipe and

[bttmfischer]

Kherson, I don't undertand. Having been involved in Hearings of the Energy Board on Ontario for  years, all decisions made by it, were stated clearly what they were, and what they were based on. The federal Commission which replaced the Federal  Energy Board, should have given a clear, valid justification what their decision was based on, at the time the decision was rendered. Still,

[Kherson]

omment by Khersonon Dec 06, 2023 12:20pm 23 Views  Post# 35771207 RE:RE:Trans Mountain Expansion - Variance Application Decision The only thing that sticks out in my mind that could be the basis of denying the application in the Decision letter from the CER, concerns the CSA Z662-19, oil and gas pipeline standard. It is covered in the C27483 response of

[bttmfischer]

Kherson, from the letter to Trans Mountain by CER it is clear that their decision will be made SHORTLY. As the time between the oral arguments and the letter was very short indeed, CER was in no position to render a decision about how the undertakings that were generated by the number of parties would address the re-designs proposed by the Engineer in Charge. So, just wait. The

[newtonboy]

OUR INTEGRATED ASSET PORTFOLIO PetroChina Canada’s portfolio includes six assets in Western Canada PetroChina Canada’s Oilsands assets are connected to the Grand Rapids Pipeline System which moves our diluted bitumen to Edmonton for market and beyond. Groundbirch and Duvernay are equity gas supply sources for our interest in LNG Canada, which upon a Final Investment

[bttmfischer]

Thank you for the information, it is much appreciated. It looks like that the Trans Mountain project has a lot of moving parts.

[newtonboy]

"looks like that the Trans Mountain project has a lot of moving parts." bttmfischer Yes too many moving parts and too few working parts. I would be shocked if the inside diameter of this pipeline makes contact with any fossil fuels while the present Federal Government remains as is. I believe it would be safe to say that neither Trudeau or the Honourable Mr. Guilbert want thir

[Kherson]

Bttmfischer, the deision has already been made and it is a big "no". As for any native involvement, there is none as the Native groups contacted did not respond. Finally for the oral arguments, click on the link for C27483 provided in the CER decision that I posted earlier today. Thanks, Kherson

[bttmfischer]

Kherson, Having read the Commission's letter dated December 5, 2023, it only stated that they will render their decision as quicly as possible. No decision quoted. I looked at C27483,you suggested as well, which did not provide any more useful information. The copy of the Commission's letter refers to page 51 of the oral proceedings, which is not available in any of the emails I had seen

[Kherson]

In Section B of the letter dated December 5th, the second paragraph states that the Commission denies the Variance! As for p.51 of the Oral Proceedings, C27448, here it is; all 30-inch diameter pipe and components comply with all project-specific relevant TMEP technical pipe specifications MR. THRASHER: It's confirmed. CHAIR PENNEY: Okay. We appreciate that. And as I said, we're -- we

[bttmfischer]

If that one liner by CER qualities as a scientifically justifyable decision, with no explanations given, I believe Trans Mountain has grounds for an appeal, including the recovery of additional costs this peril that was identified by Trans Mountain prompting the request for variance the CER chose to ignore. I did not take it seriously, how could I? By the way, this was the briefest decision I have