Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Quebec could potentialy save 3 billion annualy by importing alberta oil instead of european and north africa oil. Crazy that a province would prefer to purchase a foreign product at a higher price even if some of those countries have human rights issues.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle8905802/

And with all the crazy spin and angst over the 15B arms deal to saudi arabia, you'd think that we, as a country, want to "stick it to SA" a bit.

This pipeline is one of those ways. Canadian jobs, canadian oil, canadian refining, for both canadian usage and export.

Those giant tankers coming in from Saudi Arabia? No problem. Getting rid of those tankers, and then having our tankers exporting? OMG WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!??!

[stampsx2]

Saudi oil fills new brunswick refineries for use by eastern canada. I'm losing faith in this country.

The saudis must be laughing at us. Increase production to stick it to canadian production and they're still buying our saudi oil.

http://boereport.com/2016/01/25/saud...olicy-is-that/


.

[HOWITZER]

There is an inherent fallacy that the global economy as an entity can be sustained at its growing level of complexity by alternative energy sources. The problem is not the production of the energy, it's the consumption. Environmentalists want to squeeze the pinch point (energy supply) to force change, but it won't address the biggest problem of all: we consume more energy than we can afford (both environmentally, and resource depletion wise).

It's absolutely mind-blowing the amount of energy that goes into building one car, or powering the network to sustain a cell phone, or building a road/building. As we build more elaborate things the energy need will increase to both support these new complex things, but also the old things.

[the_only_turek_fan]

http://calgaryherald.com/storyline/b...he-finger-back

I am sure this has been discussed. But here we go again.

And it’s a funny thing — the objectors never seem to mention Alberta’s noble climate change policy, the one that was supposed to soften opposition to pipelines.

Gee....I think we all saw this train coming from a 1000 miles away.

In British Columbia, Premier Christy Clark promotes tanker shipments of liquid natural gas, and expects Alberta gas to fuel the plants, while her government opposes every oil pipeline project from over the mountains.

There’s never any pushback from Notley — just, OK, we’ll work it out somehow.

I am really really sick of this stupid woman. She makes me miss Redford.

She is digging her own grave. This is how the Donald Trump's of the world rise
in popularity and I can see it happening here in Alberta.

Not only does she have no idea what she is doing, she is directly and indirectly
screwing up this province beyond repair.

She is making it harder for the industry to invest. She should be out fighting for pipeline access, and if others are not cooperating its time to start putting up trade barriers on BC and QUE products.

This charm offensive was never going to work. In fact she is taxing her own people while
the ROC is laughing at us and watching us suffer just waiting for oil to climb back to $100 so they can get their greasy palms ready to ask for more 'dirty money'.

I am sorry to say this, but if you voted for the NDP and you can't find work then you kind
of deserve this.

There are clear and obvious solutions that are not perfect that can get work moving again.

Too bad our premier is too stupid to figure it out.

[CaptainCrunch]

Look the bottom line is that Quebec and BC couldn't give a crap about the environment when it comes to the Pipeline and Alberta Oil. They want more money.

Quebec and especially Montreal because the Mob probably wants a cut and they want all of those union construction jobs.

BC because they want their own version of royalties for every ounce of Oil that would flow through any pipelines.

Notley has to be a lot tougher then she is. She's basically an anti-oiler at heart, and a anti-pipeline person, I'm figuring it wounds her greatly everytime she has to say something nice about Oil, and the poor dear is probably getting screamed at by the anti-oil, anti-pipeline we know better members of her party and advisory staff.

Like I said, somewhat jokingly, its easy to make up the loss of oil revenues from the pipeline blocade, and that's to impose massive taxes on anything coming in and through Alberta from BC and Quebec.

You also impose a doing with Quebec tax on any private enterprise contract with Quebec firms.

I expect a little pushback on the royalty review, I also expect that it will have been scaled back quite a bit because of the public view of it, the economy and this government.

Where I literally expect the s%%% to hit the fan is when the budget is released this year where the deficit goes far beyond the $6.1 billion dollars and every Albertan is reminded that they budgeted with a ludicris estimation of Oil Revenues.

While this government can't fall. If their popularity drops into the 20's there will be tremendous pressure on Notley in terms of her ability to lead this province.

What we're going to get is more press appearances by weeping NDP'ers talking about how everyone is being mean to them.

I also expect that there will be a cabinet shuffle if this budget hits the bottom of the well, and Joe Ceci will be moved from Finance to Social Services.

[stampsx2]

But but but it's not Notley's fault oil prices are low.

So proud to say i didn't vote for them.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Look the bottom line is that Quebec and BC couldn't give a crap about the environment when it comes to the Pipeline and Alberta Oil. They want more money.

Quebec and especially Montreal because the Mob probably wants a cut and they want all of those union construction jobs.

BC because they want their own version of royalties for every ounce of Oil that would flow through any pipelines.

Notley has to be a lot tougher then she is. She's basically an anti-oiler at heart, and a anti-pipeline person, I'm figuring it wounds her greatly everytime she has to say something nice about Oil, and the poor dear is probably getting screamed at by the anti-oil, anti-pipeline we know better members of her party and advisory staff.

Like I said, somewhat jokingly, its easy to make up the loss of oil revenues from the pipeline blocade, and that's to impose massive taxes on anything coming in and through Alberta from BC and Quebec.

You also impose a doing with Quebec tax on any private enterprise contract with Quebec firms.

I expect a little pushback on the royalty review, I also expect that it will have been scaled back quite a bit because of the public view of it, the economy and this government.

Where I literally expect the s%%% to hit the fan is when the budget is released this year where the deficit goes far beyond the $6.1 billion dollars and every Albertan is reminded that they budgeted with a ludicris estimation of Oil Revenues.

While this government can't fall. If their popularity drops into the 20's there will be tremendous pressure on Notley in terms of her ability to lead this province.

What we're going to get is more press appearances by weeping NDP'ers talking about how everyone is being mean to them.

I also expect that there will be a cabinet shuffle if this budget hits the bottom of the well, and Joe Ceci will be moved from Finance to Social Services.

That is exactly what needs to happen.

Why are we letting BC, ONT, and QUE companies to do business in AB tax free.

Every product from BC that goes through AB should require a fee to get across the border, assuming you can do it constitutionally.

I know folks voted for her because the PCs were basically corrupt. But the joke is over, and this is real life now.

We need to get someone serious leading this province.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

That is exactly what needs to happen.

Why are we letting BC, ONT, and QUE companies to do business in AB tax free.

Every product from BC that goes through AB should require a fee to get across the border, assuming you can do it constitutionally.

I know folks voted for her because the PCs were basically corrupt. But the joke is over, and this is real life now.

We need to get someone serious leading this province.

Because the previously run PC's were basically corrupt.

[Looch City]

Who cares who voted for who. All 3 choices were terrible. Albertans made a decisions and now we live with it.

Lets work with what we have instead of going back to May 2015 and saying you deserve it for voting for them.

...or should I take out my pitch fork and molotov cocktails?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by the_only_turek_fan

That is exactly what needs to happen.

Why are we letting BC, ONT, and QUE companies to do business in AB tax free.

Every product from BC that goes through AB should require a fee to get across the border, assuming you can do it constitutionally.

I know folks voted for her because the PCs were basically corrupt. But the joke is over, and this is real life now.

We need to get someone serious leading this province.

I actually don't think it would be constitutional to put tariffs on inter provincial travel.

To be honest, our Prime Minister needs to step in on the pipeline thing and tell BC and Montreal that they can't block these pipelines as they are federally reviewed and approved and to shut the h#ll up.

He really also needs to put out a mandate letter that makes provinces buy Canadian Energy Products and not Oil from Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, mainly because it doesn't involve tankers, or governments with errr spotty respect for Human Rights.

[PeteMoss]

What exactly are they supposed to do to get this through? You've had Harper and the Alberta Conservatives in power for ages and didn't get pipelines then either.

[PeteMoss]

Also this let's tax everything that goes through Alberta might work if Alberta had a busy port or something. You may be able to hurt BC with it as it might effect their port business, but Ontario and the East would just ship through the US and avoid Alberta all together which would hurt Alberta more than some scheme to tax products driving through.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

this is going to be VERY interesting. Whatever they do, I guarantee there will be some that are not happy. Which is unfortunate, but this is one hell of a can of worms given the current environment.

You know a deal is a good deal, when both sides are unhappy.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Also this let's tax everything that goes through Alberta might work if Alberta had a busy port or something. You may be able to hurt BC with it as it might effect their port business, but Ontario and the East would just ship through the US and avoid Alberta all together which would hurt Alberta more than some scheme to tax products driving through.

Probably, like I said, I'm not serious about it.

The execution would be more along the lines of taxing things in alberta that are BC or Quebec made products.

Probably the most effective message would come from the consumers here, in that they boycott those products.

Except for Quebec Strippers, they're more then welcome.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

There is an inherent fallacy that the global economy as an entity can be sustained at its growing level of complexity by alternative energy sources. The problem is not the production of the energy, it's the consumption. Environmentalists want to squeeze the pinch point (energy supply) to force change, but it won't address the biggest problem of all: we consume more energy than we can afford (both environmentally, and resource depletion wise).

It's absolutely mind-blowing the amount of energy that goes into building one car, or powering the network to sustain a cell phone, or building a road/building. As we build more elaborate things the energy need will increase to both support these new complex things, but also the old things.

Not only that, but putting new versions of the old things in emerging economies. We take for granted things like reading by a lightbulb when the sun goes down, or having a refrigerator for perishable food, or having a washing machine that will work in our homes instead of going to a filthy river. LOTS of people in the world still live to this standard, and want what we have. Not to mention the fact that despite us having all of these things, we still aren't satisfied and are driving for more innovation to improve quality of life, and to have that high quality of life for an extended period of time. IT ALL NEEDS ENERGY.

The other fallacy is that somehow renewables will be cheap, reliable and have minimal environmental footprint because the fuel is free. If people only understood what goes into delivering our energy, or the true nature of the demand. Energy isn't just the gas you buy, or the light you turn on some of the time. Its the energy to make sure your gas is available to buy, or that your car is a thing made of aluminium and not wood, or that your iPhone is a thing and can use the internet, or that a hospital will be available to you when the sun isn't shining and you can live in a city.

Renewables are expensive, unreliable, will have a huge footprint and have a tremendous amount of radioactive and chemically toxic co-product when made. None of the promoters of this "grand solution" seem to take that into account and discuss a serious plan for addressing these problems.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Aren't the royalty review results supposed to be published this week?

[heep223]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

There is an inherent fallacy that the global economy as an entity can be sustained at its growing level of complexity by alternative energy sources. The problem is not the production of the energy, it's the consumption. Environmentalists want to squeeze the pinch point (energy supply) to force change, but it won't address the biggest problem of all: we consume more energy than we can afford (both environmentally, and resource depletion wise).

It's absolutely mind-blowing the amount of energy that goes into building one car, or powering the network to sustain a cell phone, or building a road/building. As we build more elaborate things the energy need will increase to both support these new complex things, but also the old things.

I have a friend who did his masters degree in environmental science. He said to me the other day: "I mean, let's just replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy. It's so simple but it's BS oil companies and politicians won't let that happen. So we have to protest the pipelines."

I repeat, he has a masters degree in environmental science.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Notley has to be a lot tougher then she is.

It sucks to see our Province shat upon by other leaders and it would be great to retaliate but pipelines are a Federal matter. Alberta is better of by showing restraint now rather than being punished for our petulance later on in the process. Even if B.C. and Quebec are not punished for their petulance, Alberta most definitely would be punished.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well i mean isn't it true that all solar panels, wind turbines, batteries for electric cars are manufactured using fairy dust, Half an ounce of unicorn semen that's been humanely harvested and assembled on mars to reduce pollution?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Aren't the royalty review results supposed to be published this week?

Probably going to be delayed again.