TC Energy formerly TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Discuss your favourite picks, broker, and trading or investment style.
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by AltaRed »

The pipe comes out of Asia, and it will be the big pipeline contractors, probably 2-3 of them that will build it. I suspect the natives will get most of the service contracts such as camps, catering, etc. and unless you want to purchase local dives in small towns, that is where the money will be spent.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Descartes
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1856
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 09:59

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Descartes »

Certainly seems far off in the future to have a short-term impact but the market likes growth stories..

TransCanada deal improves long-term growth profile
With TransCanada Corp. being selected to build, own and operate the proposed $5-billion Prince Rupert Gas Transmission project, analysts estimate the investment could generate anywhere from 21¢ to 30¢ in earnings per share once completed in 2019.

The announcement also provides more visibility on growth opportunities for the Canadian pipeline giant beyond 2015.

However, the Prince Rupert link, which is intended to serve a proposed west coast LNG terminal, is dependent on regulatory and stakeholder approvals, as well as economic approval by the project partners.

Definitive agreements are expected to be finalized early in 2013 and the project is likely to be in service at the end of 2018.
"A dividend is a dictate of management. A capital gain is a whim of the market."
User avatar
Descartes
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1856
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 09:59

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Descartes »

Nebraska governor approves new Keystone XL pipeline route
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman approved a new route for the Keystone XL oil pipeline on Tuesday that avoids the state’s environmentally sensitive Sandhills region.

Heineman sent a letter to President Barack Obama confirming that he would allow the controversial, Canada-to-Texas pipeline to proceed through his state.
"A dividend is a dictate of management. A capital gain is a whim of the market."
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

TransCanada Mainline: Time to convert to oil pipeline | Energy | News | Financial Post
The Mainline is composed of six tubes across the Prairies. TransCanada has talked about continuing to use five to move gas. Conversion of one would allow it to transport between 500,000 and one million barrels a day.
If they can convert one tube, they can convert two, potentially allowing a significant amount of oil to reach tidewater if the line is continued to St. John.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
Descartes
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1856
Joined: 03 Nov 2008 09:59

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Descartes »

Obama Says He’ll Evaluate Pipeline Project Depending on Pollution
But Mr. Obama suggested that he was also open to ways to ease concerns about the pipeline’s environmental impact.

In previous remarks, Mr. Obama has said he will approve the pipeline only if it does not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of carbon pollution. In the interview, Mr. Obama said it was possible that Canada could “potentially be doing more to mitigate carbon release.”

But he said it was not clear whether Canadian efforts would be enough to resolve concerns about pollution. And he reiterated the point that the decision about whether to proceed with the pipeline would be made after a recommendation by Secretary of State John Kerry.

“We haven’t seen specific ideas or plans,” Mr. Obama said. “But all of that will go into the mix in terms of John Kerry’s decision or recommendation on this issue.”
Smells like a distinct no to me.
President Obama protecting the world's environment from the evil tar-sanding Canadians.
I'm so glad I sold this when I did. I will buy back if/when we get the explicit no and there is a significant price drop.
"A dividend is a dictate of management. A capital gain is a whim of the market."
User avatar
adrian2
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 13333
Joined: 19 Feb 2005 08:42
Location: Greater Toronto Area

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by adrian2 »

Oh well, once again, if carbon is a pollutant, than life is a pollutant.
Life (at least how we know it on Earth) is carbon based.

You and me need to breathe for as long as we live; exhaling emits CO2.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” [Richard P. Feynman, Nobel prize winner]
schmuck
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1706
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 20:06
Location: Vancouver area

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by schmuck »

adrian2 wrote:Oh well, once again, if carbon is a pollutant, than life is a pollutant.
Life (at least how we know it on Earth) is carbon based.

You and me need to breathe for as long as we live; exhaling emits CO2.
Reminds me of president Reagan's 1981 claim that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles do".
I'm baffled more by Obey's suggestion that the construction of Keystone will only create 2,100 jobs...perhaps a Reagan asleep at the wheel moment?
Shine
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2022
Joined: 13 Dec 2010 01:32

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shine »

I suggest there will be no decision regarding Keystone from the Obama administration until after the 2014 mid terms - everything is politics regardless of the benefit to the economy and regardless if one is Democrat or a Republican. That is the tragedy for the USA.

Their politicians are more concerned with bitch-slapping each other rather than enacting beneficial legislation - actually they are incapable of enacting any legislation whatsoever.
Sensei
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1922
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 21:22
Location: Tokyo

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Sensei »

Hi,

I rarely venture opinions on politics anywhere. I like to focus on business fundamentals and keep emotions (politics for example) out of the decision making process. As a shareholder, I think the Keystone Project would add value to TRP, but the bottom line is that TRP is a good business and will continue to thrive with or without Keystone, so I don't fret much over this issue.

That said, if anyone asks my opinion or wants an unsolicited opinion, I think the Keystone Pipeline will not be approved and it won't be for any environmental reason. You just have to think about how environmentally unfriendly hydraulic fracturing is to see that environmental issues are not fundamental to US energy policy. There is barely a whisper of dissent there.

The reason is fracking serves the US energy agenda by making it possible to exploit previously untappable or unprofitable but substantial domestic reserves. Domestic production has increased dramatically. The US is the No. 2 oil producer in the world now and closing in on No. 1 quickly. The clear direction is for the US to become more or less energy independent so as to disengage from dealings with the Middle East producers.

The EIA has said that the US is now 89% energy independent, the highest point since 1986. (See Fracking Pushes U.S. Oil Output to Highest Since 1992) As you can tell from recent comments by Obama, there is a real lack of urgency to tackle this issue. The carbon argument seems pretty secondary to me. If there were any economic incentive for the US to approve the pipeline, they'd be all over it, but for the moment Obama and whoever he represents seem to be in deflection mode.

Although I would be happy as a shareholder if Keystone was approved, I think the simple facts are that the US does not need more oil from Canada, nor does more oil from Canada serve the US energy interests, at least for the time being. That will be the unspoken reason for putting the kibosh on the project.
Cheers

"A dividend being paid today is always a positive return." Josh Peters, Morningstar
User avatar
kcowan
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 16033
Joined: 18 Apr 2006 20:33
Location: Pacific latitude 20/49

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by kcowan »

The pipeline will have 1.1 million bbls/d of transportation capacity, which is more than the 850,000 bbls/d previously indicated by the company. Shippers have entered into 20-year contracts totalling 900,000 bpd of firm transportation commitments.
Sounds like this is a pure export play?
For the fun of it...Keith
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

No, some will go to Quebec and St. John refineries.

Refining Sites and Capacity | Canadian Fuels Association

1 cubic meter =
6.28981077 barrel of oil

Added: What would it take for Eastern Canada to run on Western Canadian oil? gives different refining capacities.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
StuBee
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 2944
Joined: 21 Sep 2010 11:08
Location: SW Quebec

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by StuBee »

Bump!!

The Obama administration has, yet again, bumped Keystone XL!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... e18066497/

Why do they not just kill it!! Instead, death by a thousand cuts!! I am pleased though with the comment by Russ Girling: Calm, resigned and yet firm...

StuBee
"The term is over: the holidays have begun. The dream is ended: this is the morning."-C.S.Lewis, The Last Battle
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

"Delay is the deadliest form of denial." - Laurence J. Peter

I think Obama has made it clear that with no progress on emissions there will be no pipeline.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
Shurville
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 495
Joined: 28 Oct 2005 21:46

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shurville »

Shakespeare wrote:"Delay is the deadliest form of denial." - Laurence J. Peter

I think Obama has made it clear that with no progress on emissions there will be no pipeline.
I think it has more to do with mid-term house elections!
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Springbok »

I posted an analyst review in another thread, but perhaps it should be here too:

Shakespeare wrote:
:
TRP dropped steadily over the next year to around $29.
Where I bought my extra 100 shares. (Will sell at ~$40.)
I realize I am quoting an old post, but did you sell? ;)

Just looked and I bought 500 at $25 about 10 yrs ago. Don't plan on selling any time soon!

Approval or not of Keystone doesn't seem to affect stock price much.

WSJ has interesting analyst analysis.

http://quotes.wsj.com/CA/TRP/research-ratings
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

I've traded around a central position on TRP on several occasions but have let it sit for the past few years.

The 100 was sold and I later bought 50 in the TFSA at about the same price.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
schmuck
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 1706
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 20:06
Location: Vancouver area

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by schmuck »

Couldn't resist picking up some more TRP at today's 3.75% drop that I felt was overdone for not just another Keystone delay, but one that was so blatantly political with respect to the midterm elections.

It may be time to look for the next administration to resolve this thing. But then, the Great Ditherer in Chief may have stretched things beyond all rational tolerance that could actually backfire at the polls.
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by AltaRed »

Up yours then, Mr. Obama We will move this stuff by rail, at least until you have the balls to make a decision....or get voted out of office. How do you like that?
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

More than a little irony there.

The anti-bitumen protestors have, amongst other things, argued (falsely) that bitumen is more corrosive. (Part of the false reasoning is that it comes from sand and sand is corrosive. Do they think there is no sand in normal underground oil? Have they ever heard of filters?)

But it is likely that rail shipment of bitumen - although less safe than pipeline - is safer than rail shipment of at least some types of Baaken crude because of the lower volatility.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by AltaRed »

So true the anti-oil sands movement has it so wrong about bitumen. Trouble is...where are the voices of fact?

FWIW to those not in the know, oil shipments have to meet certain quality criteria, amongst them of which is called BS&W, the amount of Basic Sediment and Water that is permissible in the shipped product. Canadian pipelines generally restrict this to 0.5% by volume though refineries generally accept up to/in the range of 1%. Most of the sediment is sand, silt and clay.

Added: What is more corrosive is the sulphur content. Lighter conventional crudes can have sulphur in it (known as sour crude), while I am not aware of any significant sulphur in shallow heavier crudes. Sweet crude has less than 0.5% sulphur by weight, sour crudes have more than 0.5% sulphur by weight.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Springbok »

From what reading I have done, several usually reliable sources (API, Batelle) have concluded that the so called Dilbut (diluted bitumen) is no more corrosive than conventional crude. I accept that, but is that supposed to be a good thing? Crude pipelines do corrode and fail and seem to do so more and more these days. The fact that both dilbut and conventional crude can corrode and erode pipelines to an equal degree probably doesn't give those who live in the path of the pipeline a warm fuzzy feeling given the recent frequency of failures.

When a pipeline, or for that matter a wind farm, or some other change that is likely to affect lifestyles or health or safety is planned, then those affected, or their champions, look for whatever ammunition they can find to make a case against the proposed change. Then the proponents of the change retaliate by loading up with their own ammunition. At that point, it is hard to know what to believe.

I ask myself questions like:
- would I support a pipeline (or whatever) if it was in my back yard?
- why is it being built? Who gains by it? And who loses?

Personally, I would be much more in favour of a pipeline that delivered petroleum products within Canada than one shipping to US refineries who apparently will then export most of the refined product offshore for purely profit reasons.

By the way, I own TRP stock :!:
User avatar
Shakespeare
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 23396
Joined: 15 Feb 2005 23:25
Location: Calgary, AB

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Shakespeare »

Study eats into oil-sands opponents’ corrosion claims - The Globe and Mail
For the latest study, conducted this year, they compared various types of oil with a salt solution, which corroded pipeline steel at a rate of nearly 20 milli-inches per year. Anything below four is considered non-corrosive. The dilbit came in at three and below.

In fact, “we are not seeing any corrosion rate which is more than around four ... in all the around 100 crude oils we have tested so far” in two decades of work, said Sankara Papavinasam, a research scientist with Natural Resources Canada.
Sic transit gloria mundi. Tuesday is usually worse. - Robert A. Heinlein, Starman Jones
User avatar
AltaRed
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 33398
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 20:04
Location: Ogopogo Land

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by AltaRed »

Springbok wrote:From what reading I have done, several usually reliable sources (API, Batelle) have concluded that the so called Dilbut (diluted bitumen) is no more corrosive than conventional crude. I accept that, but is that supposed to be a good thing? Crude pipelines do corrode and fail and seem to do so more and more these days. The fact that both dilbut and conventional crude can corrode and erode pipelines to an equal degree probably doesn't give those who live in the path of the pipeline a warm fuzzy feeling given the recent frequency of failures.
Corrosion from within the pipe is relatively minor compared to the potential for external corrosion due to pinholes that can occur in protective external coatings on the steel pipe. Cathodic protection guards immensely against external corrosion but this technology is not perfect. From an internal perspective, pitting can happen here and there depending on the amount of salt and other substances like sulphur in the oil and that is why electronic 'pigs' are run through the pipelines on regular intervals.... to find 'thinning' of the pipe wall. Despite all that, occasionally a failure happens regardless of good intentions, sometimes it is a stress failure due to shifting soils, or even an irregularity in the steel itself. All that can be done is to run these 'pigs' at shorter intervals.

Erosion is a marginal issue* in all our oil transmission lines (downstream of production/processing facilities) because of the specifications the oil must meet before entering the pipelines. Pipeline companies are sticklers for what goes in their pipelines. One does hear about erosion in flowlines between the wellhead and the field production/processing facilities and that is understandable because raw product from underground contains all sorts of crap, including sand, silt and clay from the reservoir rocks lots of water, salt, etc. Producers know this and run pigs in their lines regularly as well. Over time, these flowlines sometimes need to be replaced and sometimes fail.

Ultimately, nothing is perfect and all one can strive for is making the transportation of oil as safe as reasonably possible. Pipelining is certainly a lower risk than 100 car unit trains. We don't like electrical transmission lines in our backyard either.

* Alyeska (Alaska North Slope) pipeline has had some problems over the recent years because that huge pipeline is only running partially full. Velocity and therefore flow turbulence is not enough to keep the oil stirred up and some of the Prudhoe Bay crude BS&W can settle out in low spots in that pipeline. One can imagine how that material sitting in a low spot in a pipe for extended periods of time can be problematic.
Imagefiniki, the Canadian financial wiki The go-to place to bolster your financial freedom
User avatar
Springbok
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 5438
Joined: 22 Mar 2005 16:47

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Springbok »

The study quoted in G&M seemed to me a kinda weak effort. Firstly they did their testing at well below the pipeline operating temperature. Then it seems they just looked at the overall corrosion rate. No mention of pitting, hydrogen embrittlement, stress, microbial or other corrosion mechanisms. Or, as Alta mentions the external corrosion environment.

I wonder who influenced the G&M to publish that article? They should not be downplaying the fact that pipeline corrosion is a serious issue regardless of the type of crude being transported. Instead of a war of words as to who has the better data on corrosion, the discussion should be about how to build the safest possible pipelines and is TRP going to accomplish that.
Taggart
Veteran Contributor
Veteran Contributor
Posts: 6893
Joined: 05 Dec 2005 07:34

Re: TransCanada (Symbol-TRP)

Post by Taggart »

Post Reply