Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[burn_this_city]

Christina Lake?

Spoiler!

I spent almost 3 years at CL, its not that warm.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

The oilsands need to fight back in Canada and the US by branding imported oil as Jihadi Oil. CAPP always stays positive with its messaging but I think as terrible as negative advertising is it works.

Every barrel not produced in Canada funds terrorism and supresses minority rights and is built by slaves. Its probably a 50% true statement but when fighting people depicting the oil industry as Mordor you should fight fire with fire.

Yup. It may be completely factually incorrect but it's the same as the war on drugs or correlating marijuana use to supporting terrorists. As ridiculous as they sound, they work when speaking to the masses. Hell, entire political campaigns have been centered around that kind of false advertising. Reagan did it in the 80's, Trump seems to be doing it now.

I hate to think we need to dupe the majority of Canadians into thinking that pipelines are needed because *gasp* the terrorists make money off our oil consumption, but is it any different than the branding message already being perpetrated by US actors and environmentalists?

Following that train of thought I'm going to start connecting ridiculous dots and begin calling Dicaprio a jihadist supporter. He wants us to stay dependant on terrorist funded oil because he's supports terrorism. Pipelines are anti terrorism. Support pipelines! Support FREEDOM!!!!

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I hear what you're saying, but I don't know if
I mean the perception from out East is those Dirty Westerners and their dirty oil, and they're rich and should give us more of their money.

Out west is the perception that those Quebecers are addicted to federal money and they sponge off of us, and now they're blackmailing us for more and screwing us over.

There is no target that you can give these two groups that will remove the focus from the above. The resentments are too old and the scars are too deep.

You're right, but I think the heart of the issue is bigger than Canada. The oilsands are an international target. They are big enough to be symbolic, in a place where the access to info is easy and you won't get shot for pr stunts, with a populace that hyperventilates when we think the rest of the world is cross with us. Hollywood idiots can come here and trash things they don't understand and we'll ask for an autograph, give them a press conference and a sweet tax subsidy for their troubles.

If international attention found a different villain a huge chunk of the domestic opposition would go away. I don't know how you do that though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Umm, one of the primary purposes of Energy East is to move our raw crude to the refineries in New Brunswick. The reliance on foreign oil in this case is because we can't move enough raw product fast enough to meet the demands of the refinery's business.



I would suspect our own oil would be much cheaper to transport, for one.

Plus the use of those tankers has to be pretty significant in terms of GHG numbers, as well as safety risks in really delicate eco systems.

[rubecube]

I also think one of the bigger problems is that the oil companies themselves have a massive credibility problem after trying to fight and obfuscate the climate change debate for so long. It's come to the point where, even if what they're saying is true, people aren't going to believe them. I think that's also one of the reasons why having the Conservatives in power and basically being cheerleaders for the industry hurt things. People had the perception that government was just trying to cater to the oil companies, so nothing they said could be trusted.

We've seen similar things happen in other industries (anti-vaccines and "Big Pharma," anti-GMO and Monsanto). I actually am of the belief that Trudeau wants to get most of these pipelines built, because the Liberals have never been all that far off from the Conservatives on economic policies, but he has a huge credibility issue to address first.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I also think one of the bigger problems is that the oil companies themselves have a massive credibility problem after trying to fight and obfuscate the climate change debate for so long. It's come to the point where, even if what they're saying is true, people aren't going to believe them. I think that's also one of the reasons why having the Conservatives in power and basically being cheerleaders for the industry hurt things. People had the perception that government was just trying to cater to the oil companies, so nothing they said could be trusted.

We've seen similar things happen in other industries (anti-vaccines and "Big Pharma," anti-GMO and Monsanto). I actually am of the belief that Trudeau wants to get most of these pipelines built, because the Liberals have never been all that far off from the Conservatives on economic policies, but he has a huge credibility issue to address first.

The energy industry and government have done a horrible job of public relations and marketing, both domestic and international. For decades. Just terrible.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by heep223

The energy industry and government have done a horrible job of public relations and marketing, both domestic and international. For decades. Just terrible.

Yep. I mean I also somewhat blame the pharmaceutical industry for the rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. They've done enough unsavoury things that I completely understand the distrust that many people have towards them. Still doesn't make the anti-vaxx crowd correct and they shouldn't be allowed to influence policy, but I understand where they're coming from.

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I also think one of the bigger problems is that the oil companies themselves have a massive credibility problem after trying to fight and obfuscate the climate change debate for so long. It's come to the point where, even if what they're saying is true, people aren't going to believe them. I think that's also one of the reasons why having the Conservatives in power and basically being cheerleaders for the industry hurt things. People had the perception that government was just trying to cater to the oil companies, so nothing they said could be trusted.

We've seen similar things happen in other industries (anti-vaccines and "Big Pharma," anti-GMO and Monsanto). I actually am of the belief that Trudeau wants to get most of these pipelines built, because the Liberals have never been all that far off from the Conservatives on economic policies, but he has a huge credibility issue to address first.

I agree that the cheer leading from the conservatives did not help at all. Instead of having projects assessed on merit we got everyone who hates the Harper conservatives (a lot of people, even some conservatives) automatically cheering against the projects even though they are well thought out and the environment is the last thing companies want to be responsible for damaging. The amount of hours that go into planning and environmental assessments/inspections is astounding and I think if some of these 'green peace supporters' knew the scale they would feel better but alas those things are not always disclosed in the public realm because of competition.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Yup. It may be completely factually incorrect but it's the same as the war on drugs or correlating marijuana use to supporting terrorists. As ridiculous as they sound, they work when speaking to the masses. Hell, entire political campaigns have been centered around that kind of false advertising. Reagan did it in the 80's, Trump seems to be doing it now.

I hate to think we need to dupe the majority of Canadians into thinking that pipelines are needed because *gasp* the terrorists make money off our oil consumption, but is it any different than the branding message already being perpetrated by US actors and environmentalists?

Following that train of thought I'm going to start connecting ridiculous dots and begin calling Dicaprio a jihadist supporter. He wants us to stay dependant on terrorist funded oil because he's supports terrorism. Pipelines are anti terrorism. Support pipelines! Support FREEDOM!!!!

Originally Posted by Bend it like Bourgeois

You're right, but I think the heart of the issue is bigger than Canada. The oilsands are an international target. They are big enough to be symbolic, in a place where the access to info is easy and you won't get shot for pr stunts, with a populace that hyperventilates when we think the rest of the world is cross with us. Hollywood idiots can come here and trash things they don't understand and we'll ask for an autograph, give them a press conference and a sweet tax subsidy for their troubles.

If international attention found a different villain a huge chunk of the domestic opposition would go away. I don't know how you do that though.

Originally Posted by GGG

The oilsands need to fight back in Canada and the US by branding imported oil as Jihadi Oil. CAPP always stays positive with its messaging but I think as terrible as negative advertising is it works.

Every barrel not produced in Canada funds terrorism and supresses minority rights and is built by slaves. Its probably a 50% true statement but when fighting people depicting the oil industry as Mordor you should fight fire with fire.

Perception needs to change and knowledge must be shared but we have to realise that:

1. Yelling matches are rarely productive;
2. Rational arguments can be useless against irrational opposition; and
3. Tact is essential when using logic or combating irrationality.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Dave Mowat just released an announcement that the Royalty Review Report will be released Jan 29th, at 11:00am

I'm still hopeful this will be good news.

A silver lining to our current troubles is there's little left for Topp and Notley to take, and they are already on the defensive.

In the current environment I think it is possible for a review to be a win for the government (even an ndp government) and a win for industry, and the panel had some really smart people. If they simplify things and don't wipe out all future upside, then the process of renewal can finally begin.

Fingers crossed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I don't get the whole argument that we're buying Saudi oil, so build the pipelines to stop that. The two seem unrelated to me. Unless we put in some crazy protectionist policies, we're still going to be buying oil from countries with poor human rights records regardless of our own oil production.

Oil will be bought from who can supply it the cheapest. Really the alternative barrels are likely US shale and the whole Saudi thing is more propaganda then truth.

However when people start wanting to assign upstream GHG effects to a pipeline and compare the GHGs of the oilsands to the GHGs of Saudi oil then as part of that equation you should also include the barrels of blood and oppression required to bring you each source of oil.

Or we could approve pipelines because they are the safest, most efficient way to transport crude.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I spent almost 3 years at CL, its not that warm.

Firebag isn't nearly that scenic, either.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Not just that but when prices support expansion, the projects need to have someone willing to buy their oil which means moving it out of the province. A lack of pipeline capacity ensures there are no customers for a new project's volume even if prices support their economics.

What is that Kuwaiti project that is desalinating seawater for steam injection? That is interesting. Is that wafra?

Yes that's Wafra. You don't need to fully desalinate as the plan was to use OTSGs which can take higher chloride content but it was quite the interesting project when I worked on it in one of its previous forms

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Oil will be bought from who can supply it the cheapest. Really the alternative barrels are likely US shale and the whole Saudi thing is more propaganda then truth.

However when people start wanting to assign upstream GHG effects to a pipeline and compare the GHGs of the oilsands to the GHGs of Saudi oil then as part of that equation you should also include the barrels of blood and oppression required to bring you each source of oil.

Or we could approve pipelines because they are the safest, most efficient way to transport crude.

We actually do import a significant amount of oil form Saudi. I have no idea how a Canadian can justify supporting that horrible regime, rather than supporting Canadian jobs and our economy. It's mind boggling.

EDIT:
data:
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cimt-cicm/...odityId=270900

It's close to 11%, at $2.5 billion which I would consider significant.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We actually do import a significant amount of oil form Saudi. I have no idea how a Canadian can justify supporting that horrible regime, rather than supporting Canadian jobs and our economy. It's mind boggling.

EDIT:
data:
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cimt-cicm/...odityId=270900

It's close to 11%, at $2.5 billion which I would consider significant.

*bottling

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

We actually do import a significant amount of oil form Saudi. I have no idea how a Canadian can justify supporting that horrible regime, rather than supporting Canadian jobs and our economy. It's mind boggling.

EDIT:
data:
http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cimt-cicm/...odityId=270900

It's close to 11%, at $2.5 billion which I would consider significant.

But that oil will be purchased by someone else because it's cheap even if we don't use it. The barrels we replace by making our oil cheaper is the marginal oil that is first to be shut in.

If OPEC becomes the swing producer again then it would likely be true using our own oil decreases dependence on Saudi oil

[Fuzz]

Sometimes, it's the principle of the thing.

[Frequitude]

Here's a good argument for pipelines cutting GHGs:

The 16 largest ships in the world produce as much pollution (SO2) as every single car in the world combined.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ars-world.html
(lots of other sources...google it...I just copied the first credible link I came across)

Some sources say 15, I've seen some say 17, but that obviously doesn't make a difference to the point. Crazy, right. Like, stop and think about that for just one sec. Think about how insane that is.

Maybe Trudeau should include that in his review considerations...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Here's a good argument for pipelines cutting GHGs:

The 16 largest ships in the world produce as much pollution (SO2) as every single car in the world combined.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ars-world.html
(lots of other sources...google it...I just copied the first credible link I came across)

Some sources say 15, I've seen some say 17, but that obviously doesn't make a difference to the point. Crazy, right. Like, stop and think about that for just one sec. Think about how insane that is.

Maybe Trudeau should include that in his review considerations...

The guy did claim that he was going to make decisions based on evidence, so now's the chance to show it.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Here's a good argument for pipelines cutting GHGs:

The 16 largest ships in the world produce as much pollution (SO2) as every single car in the world combined.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ars-world.html
(lots of other sources...google it...I just copied the first credible link I came across)

Some sources say 15, I've seen some say 17, but that obviously doesn't make a difference to the point. Crazy, right. Like, stop and think about that for just one sec. Think about how insane that is.

Maybe Trudeau should include that in his review considerations...

Anyone have a guess how much energy it takes to move an equivalent amount of oil the equivalent distance by pipeline?