Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[flamesfever]

The way I see it the Keystone XL is all about NA oil independence. That point should be hammered home so that the Yanks understand that the Democrats are doing damage in the long run by cancelling it. Perhaps even considering shutting down all oil and gas to the US for a day would wake them up.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I just looked through Notley's twitter, I don't see any fist pumps. She's asking legitimate questions as to why Kenney risked so much fo our tax dollars on this. It actually sounds like she is concerned for Alberta, not scoring twitter points. It makes me want to vote for her more, not less.

Like ANYONE on here believes Crunch won't vote for the UCP...

Now Notley, grow some balls and dismantle the AB NDP name!!!

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm all for government grants for startups, especially tech startups. But that's where it ends for me.

lol, isn't your job working with tech start-ups? This is the most hilariously biased post in the history of CP. As a taxpayer, I'd have to say I'm not super excited about gambling my money on fataing tech start-ups of all things - particularly as a grant where there is no upside to me.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

We’re talking like it’s done for good, but really the only thing this guarantees is that it won’t be in service in 2023. The same bureaucratic and legal largess that kept it from getting started until 3 years after trump approved it will cut the other way now. Stuff is already in the ground, including the cross border piece. Back into limbo we go, but what’s another few years in decades long fight?

I'm still hoping their "Hail Mary" of the green energy offsets and union jobs is enough to get their head off the chopping block.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

What about movie and TV tax credits? They return far more than what it gives up, with very little risk. I think there are smart ways to do these sorts of things, and it depends on the industry.



The problem with the pipeline is that he invested our dollars, and risked more through a loan guarantee for a big gamble. That's a lot different than tax credits.

I'm generally in favour of tax credits and tax breaks.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Sliver

lol, isn't your job working with tech start-ups? This is the most hilariously biased post in the history of CP. As a taxpayer, I'd have to say I'm not super excited about gambling my money on fataing tech start-ups of all things - particularly as a grant where there is no upside to me.

I'd rather them throw billions at startup techs than to a pipeline.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, governments shouldn't be in business, they're just completely incompetent about it.



Which means that the government should get out of subsidizing the Green Industries as well. As well as things like Casinos,Governments right now are picking winners and losers at a wicked pace, ie Casinos over airlines. Green businesses over Oil and Gas.



Kenney bobbled the ball here badly, he should have known what Biden would do based on the track record of the democrats under Obama and the Keystone.

How did you feel about the massive government investment that went into starting up the oil sands? Sometimes it is quite appropriate for government to support a sector that is seen as important for the future or that has demonstrated returns on such investment. They should avoid picking individual projects though.

Who here doesn't think that green and tech are going to be cornerstones of the future global economy? Maybe not here yet but those seem like pretty good bets to make on a broad basis.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

I'd rather them throw billions at startup techs than to a pipeline.

*faints from surprise*

[Flamenspiel]

Tech has had its own boom and bust cycle, are people on CP so young that they do not even remember that?

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I agree, governments shouldn't be in business, they're just completely incompetent about it.

Which means that the government should get out of subsidizing the Green Industries as well. As well as things like Casinos,Governments right now are picking winners and losers at a wicked pace, ie Casinos over airlines. Green businesses over Oil and Gas.

Kenney bobbled the ball here badly, he should have known what Biden would do based on the track record of the democrats under Obama and the Keystone.

Good ideas don't always make good business.
Especially when it's typically politicians who most times, even at a high level, don't understand the fundamentals enough to even talk to the right people. Many moons back my energy-economics prof was talking about energy, supply demand, competing energy forms, etc... and so we asked why he wasn't in politics or working with a politician. He laughed then derisively said something to the effect of He HAD been doing that but politicians don't want to hear truth, they only want to hear a way to accomplish their own goals. In other words... they wanted an echo chamber.

[CaptainCrunch]

Nope and I agree, and that's why the grant process for startups is pretty stringent, its about more then just an idea, its about their business plan, its about if the idea is just an idea that's not all that innovative or is going into a competitive environment without any innovation or disruption.

The difficult thing for tech startups is getting them to a position of having an MVP that can present to funding options. For that, they do need business expertise and technical expertise that they might not have or be able to afford. Most startups don't have a great deal of money, and frankly banks for loans don't do a great job in dealing with this.

There's nothing the matter with providing a boost to startups as unlike larger organizations don't have the resources or cash in hand to do development cycles.

There are lots of startups that I've talked to that are not great startup ideas or innovative ideas, and the journey has pretty much ended. A pitch like we are like __________ (a already prevalent business in a sector, or doing the same thing as so and so) is not going to get you grants or garner interest from VC's or AIs. But the ones that are doing real innovative or disruptive work, that have a product that is going to be of interest, or fills a space that isn't being addressed, do need a boost up that they can't get early in their development stage.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Flamenspiel

Tech has had its own boom and bust cycle, are people on CP so young that they do not even remember that?

That's when I learned to get scared of anything that seemed too good.

I was getting my software engineering degree with the dot com bust went down. In my second year of university, kids were getting offers for $100K to ditch school and move to the US. When I came out of school, I was one of 2 people in my class that managed to find a job (that wasn't directly a software engineering role) and I happily accepted my $44K offer without countering.

To summarize my life:

Switched from my intended Mechanical Engineering route to Software: crash

Switched from awful jobs in the beaten down tech sector to energy: crash

Now I'm back in software....

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Good to know TC is willing to offset GHGs for pipelines now, as that’s why they walked away from Energy East.

Just want to correct this. The issue was that the new Liberal guidelines push projects to consider upstream and downstream emissions, not just their own. This means that TC would've been "responsible" (not clear on what that means economically) for the downstream emissions of combustion as well as the upstream emissions of production for every barrel in their line.

The current pledge is to offset emissions in running of the pipeline, like powering pump stations. Not the upstream and downstream emissions.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

That's when I learned to get scared of anything that seemed too good.

I was getting my software engineering degree with the dot com bust went down. In my second year of university, kids were getting offers for $100K to ditch school and move to the US. When I came out of school, I was one of 2 people in my class that managed to find a job (that wasn't directly a software engineering role) and I happily accepted my $44K offer without countering.

To summarize my life:

Switched from my intended Mechanical Engineering route to Software: crash

Switched from awful jobs in the beaten down tech sector to energy: crash

Now I'm back in software....

Oh no....get out of here you Typhoid Mary!!!

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

That's when I learned to get scared of anything that seemed too good.

I was getting my software engineering degree with the dot com bust went down. In my second year of university, kids were getting offers for $100K to ditch school and move to the US. When I came out of school, I was one of 2 people in my class that managed to find a job (that wasn't directly a software engineering role) and I happily accepted my $44K offer without countering.

To summarize my life:

Switched from my intended Mechanical Engineering route to Software: crash

Switched from awful jobs in the beaten down tech sector to energy: crash

Now I'm back in software....

Time to suck it up and go work for the Canucks or Oilers.

Or are you that potent that you would bring down the entire NHL?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Time to suck it up and go work for the Canucks or Oilers.

Or are you that potent that you would bring down the entire NHL?

Good question. Maybe we shouldn't risk it. One thing is for sure, my vacation to Wuhan was a big mistake.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Good question. Maybe we shouldn't risk it. One thing is for sure, my vacation to Wuhan was a big mistake.

Look what it did to your face.

[Table 5]

I'm all for tax incentives, luring tech companies, movie credits, expanding tourism...they all play a part in diversifying our economy. The fact that the UCP got rid of the credits seemed like needlessly idiotic self-harm.

Having said that, I think it's important to keep in mind is that the only real "hand" Canada has on the world economic stage is our abundance of natural resources. Whether it's fossil fuels, agriculture, minerals, water... these are the things that are crucial to life and give our country any real economic and political weight. Natural resources don't always play well from an ESG front in the west, but they have been, and continue to be, the economic foundations of most of the worlds leading economies.

Most countries would kill (and have killed!) for the amount of natural resources Canada has its disposal...and yet many of us seem to be ok with letting our main economic advantage wither away. Even if we go all-in on the renewables front, these sectors are crucial and have the ability to be economic drivers. People always seem to forget how much mining, minerals, and natural resources that it actually involves to built and maintain those machines (the sun and wind may be renewable, but those solar panels and turbines sure aren't!).

Economic diversity is always important, but in the end, I think how we manage our natural resources is still going to be the biggest determining factor in terms of our success as a province and a country. I think our leadership, both on the provincial and federal stage, have done an extremely poor job on this front.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Table 5

...
Most countries would kill (and have killed!) for the amount of natural resources Canada has its disposal...and yet many of us seem to be ok with letting our main economic advantage wither away. ...

It would be a mistake to think that. Irrational and illiterate vocal minority may seem like "many of us", but they are not that many, just more loud and more visible floating on the surface. Humanity has never willingly abandoned an available source of energy.

[octothorp]

Not having followed Keystone in detail, what was the reason for phase 4 having such a radically different route than phase 1? Surely it would have been much easier to gain approvals on land where those phase 1 deals were already in place. Obviously it's shorter, and I see that there was a plan to access the Bakken formation fields in Montana. Are those the only reasons? Was it thought that approval on the phase 4 route would be easier than additional capacity along the phase 1?

In retrospect, would a larger-capacity along the phase 1 line, combined with a connector line with the Bakken fields as a later phase have been better?

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Humanity has never willingly abandoned an available source of energy.