Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[stampsx2]

• The “dirtiest oil in North America” is not produced in Canada, but just outside Los Angeles, where the Placerita oil field generates about twice the level of upstream emissions as Canadian oilsands production;

Wisconsin's coal plants produce the same amount of ghg's as the canadian oil sands.

http://ipolitics.ca/2014/07/18/how-c...-be-surprised/

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I actually have a bigger response for tomorrow, but I'll just leave one question because it's one I'm genuinely curious about (and apologies if someone has already answered it). Would the implementation of new pipelines actually reduce the amount of oil shipped by rail, or would it just be adding an additional avenue for more oil to be shipped?

I see what you're getting at. Big bad oil. The oil sands are reducing their carbon emmissions footprint each year anyway.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't work in the O&G industry and don't pretend to know much about it, but it seems to me that if all the pipelines we want running out of Alberta were magically built tomorrow, our fortunes wouldn't be changing.

The price of oil wouldn't suddenly go up because we have these pipelines. It's not like the price went down because there Alberta couldn't get it out into the world.

These pipelines didn't exist when the latest boom was going boom and we did alright because the price was high. But now we are bitching and moaning and sadly whining when the price is down, and blaming it on some a$$hole in Montreal who doesn't matter at all, and both the provincial and federal government who can't do anything about it.

Actually, as Campbells said, the price of oil would go up dramatically via a shrinking WCS discount as soon as pipelines are built and we expand our market.

"These pipelines didn't exist when the latest boom was going boom and we did alright because the price was high"

Shake your head man. They were important then and are even more important now as it would make the difference between profit and loss for so many companies.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/9/3/Cana...essential.aspx

[Jason14h]

I guess we will see how Quebec truely feels when the transfer payments stop rolling i. Heck they riot over tuition increases.

Oh wait the Federal government will just borrow money and buy their votes anyways!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect that Kent is about to learn how wrong his assumption is.

Yes Kent, we're ok with a flattened economy and mass job losses so you guys can waste even more time in a committee studying these things.

I would expect that all the party members have been whipped to follow the Trudeau way.

This just feels like SSDT, Same sh^^ different Trudeau, at least last time a Trudeau tried to screw this province over we had a provincial government that basically tried to stand up to him.

Notley will probably print up a pair of cute sparkly T-Shirts and take some selfies with him when he shows up here next week, and they have a hug fest.

Well I think that you're laying it on a bit thick here. I mean the Liberals have only been in office for 3 months, and there was a lot of job loss before they were even elected.

Originally Posted by CampbellsTransgressions

Intentionally delaying a $15 billion project for 2 years while hundreds of thousands of Canadians are facing job losses or already out of work is a problem. But it's okay, Trudeau would rather borrow $15 billion and spend it on inefficient government projects.

Consult with First Nations, fine. But even six months is way too long of a consultation period, especially when you're putting their needs ahead of those that are suffering right now.

A majority of provinces are behind Energy East. In fact, even the Quebec Premier is in favour of it. Why isn't the project being grandfathered?

Because it's their agenda. They are out to kill the oil sands. Call me delusional all you want, but as far as I can see, they just gave themselves more power to kill pipelines and more power to kill train terminals. Why are they concerned with the GHG emissions of oilsands, from a pipeline context? Because they want to KILL the oil sands.

I don't want to believe it, but the writing is on the wall.

Edit: I shouldn't say they want to kill the oil sands, rather they just want to stop the industry from growing any further.

Same with the Alberta NDP.

Isn't that first line a little bit disingenuous? The pipeline wasn't going to be given the greenlight "tomorrow", as far as I understand? The delay is basically 6 months added isn't it?

[VladtheImpaler]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

When does he expect it to drop to 60 cents ?

This year.

[nik-]

so far it's shaping up to be a double meat day

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by nik-

so far it's shaping up to be a double meat day

Better make it a breakfast sub.

[Tron_fdc]

Yeah I'm liking todays gains.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I actually have a bigger response for tomorrow, but I'll just leave one question because it's one I'm genuinely curious about (and apologies if someone has already answered it). Would the implementation of new pipelines actually reduce the amount of oil shipped by rail, or would it just be adding an additional avenue for more oil to be shipped?

The pipeline is worth about $3-$5 per barrel in reduced cost.

So the oil price required for economic production is $3-$5 higher if you have pipelines. So if there is available pipeline capacity no one will ship by rail. You would still have some rail shipping local to Alberta for small plants not currently on the pipeline network.

Even from a GHG perspective if you read the US EPA? I think report it talks about the pipeline impact on Oilsands production having 0 effect at an Oil Price above $70 per barrel. This report also didn't really consider that alternative oil would have to replace the oilsands at the Marginal barrel not the average barrel.

So the net affect of a pipeline on green house gases is that the economic viability of oilsands is about $3 per barrel less. In otherwords any negative GHG effects could be handled with country and world wide Carbon reduction schemes that target all industries and not just the oilsands.

Every barrel not produced by Canada is produced by the US, Saudi, Russia, Iran, Syria, etc. All countries with far less stringent environmental restrictions. The oilsands have a minimal effect on GHG as marginal barrels are close in impact.

Kuwait right now is building a heavy oil field that desalinates sea water, turns it into steam and injects in into the ground. Really no different than what we do.

If you want to stop GHG attack demand. Even if you want to stop making oil $3-$5 cheaper you would be better off building the pipelines and taxing oil more. That's what is so ridiculous about the Anti pipeline stance. Regardless of where you stand on the industry doing things a safer, more efficient way is better.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well I think that you're laying it on a bit thick here. I mean the Liberals have only been in office for 3 months, and there was a lot of job loss before they were even elected.




Isn't that first line a little bit disingenuous? The pipeline wasn't going to be given the greenlight "tomorrow", as far as I understand? The delay is basically 6 months added isn't it?

I don't think its laying it on a little thick.

From a Alberta Economy standpoint, he's now taken two actions that appear to be both piling on and bad for the Alberta Economy.

The first was his mandate letter within days of being elected concerning tanker traffic off the BC coast (Kittimake sp?). Which essentially killed any pipeline projects to the West.

Then he doesn't change the review process, but instead adds extensions to it, because they want to have more native consultation in the review. Well forgive me for being a bit opaque, but it seems like the review process is already incredibly lengthy because they have these consultations happening, and they are pretty much not only taking over these reviews, but its now a tactic of environmentalists to throw a wrench into these things, by intentionally over loading them with everyone related and unrelated to these projects being invited in.

They're not changing how they review environmental impacts, they're not streamlining the process, they're actually building in a time line to make these things more ineffective.

To me there are three questions that need to be addressed.

Are the Oil Sands producers working to reduce their GHG emissions?

Are pipelines more GHG efficient then transporting by rail and truck? Is it a safer method of transport?

Is the economic reality of Canada being negatively effected by not building these pipelines, and conversely does Canada as a whole benefit from these pipelines?

We're not stupid here, we're not buck toothed rednecks wearing coveralls and playing banjos, no matter what they think in Ottawa and Toronto and Montreal. We know that Trudeau can't wave a magic wand and have pipelines built tomorrow. However if his announcement would have been based around, lets look at how we can make the review process more effective and efficient, instead of, hey we know this whole process is BS and has been hijacked, but we're merely going to add more time on to how long it takes to do it, and probably allow it to be hijacked anymore.

Personally, I think that any environmental group that wants to participate in these reviews, or any native group that wants to participate in it cannot receive funding from groups like the Tides or Rockerfeller. There that should knock down the consultations by about 50%.

[jammies]

There's many people outside Alberta that prefer the fantasy that stopping pipelines is stopping GHG and pollution. There's an equally deluded Albertan contingent that thinks you can ram thru mega-projects against such determined, ideologically-based opposition by pointing out the economic benefits.

The oilsands are a symbol, opposing them is a war on what they are perceived to stand for, which is uncaring environmental destruction for profit. The only real way to win that war from the oilsands side is to find a more fitting symbol for people to hate. Until then, in Canada you'll have a choice of Conservatives pretending to expedite the pipelines, Liberals barely keeping up a pretense, or the NDP not even bothering to pretend.

[nik-]

Once the mining operations are done, their poster child for the "terror" of the Oil Sands will be gone. Until then, we're an easy target.

[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.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by jammies

There's many people outside Alberta that prefer the fantasy that stopping pipelines is stopping GHG and pollution. There's an equally deluded Albertan contingent that thinks you can ram thru mega-projects against such determined, ideologically-based opposition by pointing out the economic benefits.

The oilsands are a symbol, opposing them is a war on what they are perceived to stand for, which is uncaring environmental destruction for profit. The only real way to win that war from the oilsands side is to find a more fitting symbol for people to hate. Until then, in Canada you'll have a choice of Conservatives pretending to expedite the pipelines, Liberals barely keeping up a pretense, or the NDP not even bothering to pretend.

I hear what you're saying, but I don't know if I agree with it.

Frankly right now you're starting to see a two way shift.

Lets be honest Albertan's are freaking out right now, they've seen something like 60,000 jobs lost, and its probably going to get worse now. They're seeing their taxes increase, and a carbon tax coming in, an ineffectual government. And now a Federal Government that has taken what is going to be perceived as a very anti-oil stance against not only Alberta, but Saskatchewan.

On the other side, you've got people obsessed with the GHG debate, that is putting the strict blame on the Oil Sands, because they're getting barraged with propaganda both warranted and unwarranted.

There is literally nothing in the middle, and there is literally nothing that is going to remove the focus of both sides. They're like two boxers punching each other in the face with malice and glee for all eternity.

But the anger and resentment is going to get worse as the economic picture gets worse in this province, both against the standing provincial government, but we're also starting to see a real stirring resentment that Codorre stirred up with his asinine stupidity. Its going to be quicker to explode because the scars of the damage inflicted by the NEB and Trudeau's brilliant but vindictive and arrogant old man.

To people standing on the edge of the cliff economically or at least the feeling that they are. Things like essentially killing or delaying pipelines even further for example will stir up a great deal of resentment, both internally and externally and that emotion is going to need somewhere to go, and as easy as it is to say, give them something else to hate. In reality it never works that way.

I would expect that as things get delayed and if the NDP continue to fumble, and if Trudeau for example sticks to his, I'm going to give you this pittance billion in infrastructure spending while giving the same amount to one Quebec company that the resentment is going to boil over and you will get a separatist movement in Alberta and Saskatchewan again.

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.

[heep223]

WTI continues to rally, touching $35 this morning. Currently $33.50

[CaptainCrunch]

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.

Not to make light but I can see the advertising campaigns.

Your gas provided by Saudi Co in co-operation with ISIL, now with 10% more blood of the innocent in every liter

[Slava]

Originally Posted by heep223

WTI continues to rally, touching $35 this morning. Currently $33.50

This is on the back of an apparent deal to cut production by 5%. At least that is what the Russians say the Saudis are proposing.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Slava

This is on the back of an apparent deal to cut production by 5%. At least that is what the Russians say the Saudis are proposing.

This in itself would pretty much balance supply and demand.

That's not even taking into account the likely 3M barrels we're going to lose in N America alone this year.

Like I've been saying, the market has been very short sighted on this. We could easily be in a significant supply shortage in as short as 6 months

[stampsx2]

Problem is this is all speculation among over-zealous investors at the moment. Quick market reaction.