Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You do know battery technology has shown magnitudinal leaps in the last 20 years, right?

And that many cancers can now be treated or even cured now?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You do know battery technology has shown magnitudinal leaps in the last 20 years, right?

And yet, I still haven't met a battery that didn't turn into absolute garbage over time.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

You do know battery technology has shown magnitudinal leaps in the last 20 years, right?

You do know “magnitudinal” isn’t a real word, right?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

And yet, I still haven't met a battery that didn't turn into absolute garbage over time.

A breakthrough in any field hardly ever solves every problem researchers are trying to solve.

Change is generally a slow, upward process.

Which is another reason why we should write off the Canadian energy industry. 10 years from now we could be the cleanest oil producing country in the world. Easily.

[Bill Bumface]

If the world was one big country, and you needed X barrels of oil. How many would you take from Alberta?

I bet none would come from the oil sands. You are fighting geology/physics to extract efficiently.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

If the world was one big country, and you needed X barrels of oil. How many would you take from Alberta?

I bet none would come from the oil sands. You are fighting geology/physics to extract efficiently.

I’d disagree,

If you look at something like Meg Energy Christina lake it’s Opex is about 0 after you add power sales.

That’s got to be competitive on a world scale. Also if you made all steam generated at SAGD facilities required to be natural gas Co-generation you get 90% efficiency instead of 83% with straight power generation. In a centrally planned world that still uses nat gas SAGD becomes a waste energy stream.

Also in this centrally planned world American Jurisdictions would be subject to stricter environmental regulations driving their costs significantly up. Water treatment and re-use of frac water would affect their economics significantly or Alberta requirements would drop.

Now I am unsure the affect of 3rd world regimes being investor friendly would have though environmental and worker regulations would also drive their costs up.

[edslunch]

Part of Aramco’s marketing pitch for their IPO is that no matter what happens to global oil demand in the future due to climate change action they will be the suppliers of the last barrel since their carbon intensity is the lowest. I’m not saying they are correct but it speaks to the future jockeying for market share based on CO2 considerations

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

If the world was one big country, and you needed X barrels of oil. How many would you take from Alberta?

I bet none would come from the oil sands. You are fighting geology/physics to extract efficiently.

Let's say you're right. So what? The world isn't one big country, and it's not going to be. Different environmental and human rights standards are things in the real world, even though your hypothetical scenario eliminates them.

[burn_this_city]

People forget that different oil grades yield different product mixes. Light crude doesn't yield very much distillate. Going forward in a world of electrification, heavy grades may end up with a greater percentage of the remaining demand. If gasoline demand goes down, so does demand for light oil.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

You do know “magnitudinal” isn’t a real word, right?

And yet you understood it regardless.

It's used frequently in physics, common lexicon be damned.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by SebC

Let's say you're right. So what? The world isn't one big country, and it's not going to be. Different environmental and human rights standards are things in the real world, even though your hypothetical scenario eliminates them.

Because it's time to cut the rhetoric of "let's invest in technologies to make Canadian oil the cleanest/most efficient".

You're producing water, throwing a bunch of energy into it to make steam, pumping it around and then treating it. Meanwhile someone else sticks a straw in the ground and oil comes out.

Why don't we change the message to something believable to the rest of the country/world? Something along the lines of "Capitalizing on our natural resources in the near term to invest in a future of ________" would sure seem a lot more genuine and believable.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Because it's time to cut the rhetoric of "let's invest in technologies to make Canadian oil the cleanest/most efficient".

You're producing water, throwing a bunch of energy into it to make steam, pumping it around and then treating it. Meanwhile someone else sticks a straw in the ground and oil comes out.

Why don't we change the message to something believable to the rest of the country/world? Something along the lines of "Capitalizing on our natural resources in the near term to invest in a future of ________" would sure seem a lot more genuine and believable.

No one is sticking a straw down in the ground and oil comes out.

For example:Kuwait’s latest project is a massive cyclic steam field.

https://www.hydrocarbons-technology....pment-project/

The C02 produced by the marginal competing barrel is what needs to be looked at not the ideal competing barrel. We could also save a tonne of money if instead of treating the water we just injected it in disposal wells like other jurisdictions. The 90% waters recycle rate requirement is a huge challenge.

It’s a little old but if you look at the chart on page nine of the link below you see that Canadian mined oil and SAGD are reasonably competitive with other oil sources. So things like 25% reductions in per barrel intensities are meaningful when compared to the marginal barrel.

https://cdn.ihs.com/ihs/cera/Oil-San...Oil-Supply.pdf

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

Because it's time to cut the rhetoric of "let's invest in technologies to make Canadian oil the cleanest/most efficient".

You're producing water, throwing a bunch of energy into it to make steam, pumping it around and then treating it. Meanwhile someone else sticks a straw in the ground and oil comes out.

Why don't we change the message to something believable to the rest of the country/world? Something along the lines of "Capitalizing on our natural resources in the near term to invest in a future of ________" would sure seem a lot more genuine and believable.

I'm sorry but Canada isn't that influential, I mean the strategy of slowing down Canada's energy segment didn't result in people going "Oh my god, lets follow Canada's lead", more along the lines of "Lets take the market share that Canada's lost"

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm sorry but Canada isn't that influential, I mean the strategy of slowing down Canada's energy segment didn't result in people going "Oh my god, lets follow Canada's lead", more along the lines of "Lets take the market share that Canada's lost"

It's not about being a global leader, it's about setting Canada up for success in the very long term future.

You can say Canada isn't that influential, but everyone loves to talk about Norway. And they should. Norway has done a great job so far of grabbing all the money they can from their resources to give their country a great chance to be ok in a world where those resources aren't as valued.

If Canada can't be as "Influential" as Norway, we are more pathetic than I give us credit for.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

It's not about being a global leader, it's about setting Canada up for success in the very long term future.

You can say Canada isn't that influential, but everyone loves to talk about Norway. And they should. Norway has done a great job so far of grabbing all the money they can from their resources to give their country a great chance to be ok in a world where those resources aren't as valued.

If Canada can't be as "Influential" as Norway, we are more pathetic than I give us credit for.

People love to talk about Norway's sovereign wealth fund and how it was funded by their oil industry, but I've never heard anyone talking about Norway being influential.

We also can't even do what Norway did because we have political parties that want to kill the industry outright.

[CaptainCrunch]

Norway is completely different, they also don't have things like road blocks to tide water, their situation is much easier then ours.



Also we've seen it, if Canada reduces their exports, countries with worse environmental records and laws, and worse Human Rights records take up the slack happily.


Just in the act of Canada who actually have environmental standards being a major supplier would reduce the global carbon footprint. We should also be heavily encouraging the shipment of natural gas to countries that are using for example coal as a primary electricity generating fuel. We should be finding a way to not only take market share from countries like Saudi Arabia, the US, Russia etc, but selling our technology which brings in money to improve out technology and research alternative energy. And frankly we shouldn't be importing one friggen drop of oil and gas from Saudi Arabia.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Norway is completely different, they also don't have things like road blocks to tide water, their situation is much easier then ours.

How are they completely different?

We have a lot more coastline than they do. Arguably, their voters are a lot more left leaning than ours, and the environment is highly valued by most Norwegian citizens.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

How are they completely different?

We have a lot more coastline than they do. Arguably, their voters are a lot more left leaning than ours, and the environment is highly valued by most Norwegian citizens.

For starters, their oil production is offshore, which severely limits the chance for inter-jurisdictional pettiness to hamstring their industry.

[peter12]

BC Supreme Court rules in favour of CGL.

Another big legal win in this absolute farce of an issue.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bill Bumface

How are they completely different?

We have a lot more coastline than they do. Arguably, their voters are a lot more left leaning than ours, and the environment is highly valued by most Norwegian citizens.

Off shore as mentioned below. They don't have the same roadblocks to pipeline construction, they're taking full advantage of their energy sector, we are not.