Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by troutman

U.K. to ban new gas vehicles, diesel cars by 2035

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk...035-2020-02-04

By 2035 the UK is going to be a smouldering Post-Apocalyptic wasteland anyways with no resources to speak of and operating on a feudalism social structure, so I wouldnt worry too much about them.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

(Although not so great if you're planning to also transition to solar...)

Heh...does the UK even know what the word solar means?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by troutman

U.K. to ban new gas vehicles, diesel cars by 2035

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/uk...035-2020-02-04

I'm going to start saving to pre-order as many 2034 vehicles as I can, they'll be worth a fortune

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I'm going to start saving to pre-order as many 2034 vehicles as I can, they'll be worth a fortune

Make sure your include a red barchetta in there.

[Nufy]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

Heh...does the UK even know what the word solar means?

That thing that shines above all the clouds...and fog ?

[Yoho]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1225636169104248832

[CaptainCrunch]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1225802998116425728

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://twitter.com/user/status/1225802998116425728

There was a private company ready and willing to do it, we just didnt let them.

[peter12]

With all the additional rerouting and consultations required, it's no wonder.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

There was a private company ready and willing to do it, we just didnt let them.

Oh really? Who is that? The only one I knew of was walking away.

[_Q_]

There is no way Teck doesn't get approved. The economic repercussions for such a move would be catastrophic.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by _Q_

There is no way Teck doesn't get approved. The economic repercussions for such a move would be catastrophic.

Never say never, politicians are making the decision.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well if they cancel it and send us what is basically a welfare check, it better be in the 12 figures.


The policitical ramifications of this are huge. There are already stores about the Liberal Caucus being extremely oppossed to the approval so this puts the Prime Minister in a tough spot.


If he approves it, he pisses off his party, the enviromental movement, his core voters and maybe gains a tiny bit of political game.


If he kills it, he keeps his party, the environmental movement and his core voters happy and doesn't really lose anything in Western Canada voter wise.



The question is how much of a theoretical constitutional crisis could this fire up.

[burn_this_city]

I think he could gamble on approving it, hoping it's never built. Suncor just took a substantial write down on Fort Hills, and I'm skeptical that Teck could get the funding for this project. I don't see the economics working current prices, and their CEO just threw cold water on it a week ago.

[troutman]

Want to Fight Climate Change? Stop Believing These Myths

https://www.wired.com/story/guide-to-climate-success/

You’d be forgiven for feeling hopeless right now.

But all is not lost. Take it from economist Mark Jaccard of Simon Fraser University in Canada, who has for decades advised governments on climate policy, and who wrote the new book The Citizen's Guide to Climate Success: Overcoming Myths that Hinder Progress. In it, he argues for essential steps we still can and must take to save ourselves and the planet. And he points out that in order to make political changes, scientists and activists don’t have to convince everyone of the seriousness of the threat—they just have to motivate what he calls “climate-sincere” policymakers to put new regulations in place, and fast. With decisive action, he argues, humans eliminated acid rain and ozone-killing chlorofluorocarbons, and we can do it again. But it means confronting persistent myths about climate change. Think of it like the illumination of inconvenient truths within the larger Inconvenient Truth.

Jaccard argues against some conventional wisdom, like the idea that fossil fuels are altogether evil, pointing out that almost nothing around you would have been possible without coal, oil, and gas. In response to the argument that we can ditch oil and coal immediately, he points out that renewable technologies are still more expensive and are not as readily available in the economically developing world, where plentiful and cheap fossil fuels are helping pull people out of poverty. And he says the notion of peak oil—the argument that the world’s about to run out of the stuff—is a lot farther off than you imagine, thanks to oil companies finding ever more ways to extract the stuff. Sorry, he argues, but we can’t rely on fossil-fuel scarcity to get us out of this mess.

[CaptainCrunch]

Possibly and I don't disagree with you. But politics is optics, if he approves it, even if Teck doesn't build it, he's going to feel heat on his side. If he kills it he feels heat from the West.


If he kills it and sends a check, he's going to have to be aware of the size of the check.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Possibly and I don't disagree with you. But politics is optics, if he approves it, even if Teck doesn't build it, he's going to feel heat on his side. If he kills it he feels heat from the West.


If he kills it and sends a check, he's going to have to be aware of the size of the check.

If the rumours of it being tied to net zero emissions commitment by Alberta are true is that a reasonable deal? Would Kenney sign up for anything like that?

[burn_this_city]

We’re probably better off long run getting orphan well clean up money, rather than approval on a mine that likely won’t be built. Our provincial government may bray about it, but it’s probably in their interest as well to avoid that liability.

There’s also the matter of adding another mine worth of tailings. That problem seems to be a tougher nut to crack than we thought 10 years ago.

[Flames0910]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

We’re probably better off long run getting orphan well clean up money, rather than approval on a mine that likely won’t be built. Our provincial government may bray about it, but it’s probably in their interest as well to avoid that liability.

There’s also the matter of adding another mine worth of tailings. That problem seems to be a tougher nut to crack than we thought 10 years ago.

I agree with you that orphan well cleanup money would be helpful.

On the other hand, if it's tied to a net zero commitment, it might help with investors, even if it doesn't get built.

[CaptainCrunch]

Line in the sand is being drawn


https://calgaryherald.com/news/polit...nment-minister

The Alberta government won’t accept a “charity handout” from Ottawa in lieu of approval of the Teck Frontier mine, Environment and Parks Minister Jason Nixon said Friday.


Responding to reports that the federal government was planning an aid package for Alberta if the former opts to block the oilsands project, Nixon said the decision on Frontier is not “something to be traded away.”


“Teck is not a political gift,” he said. “It deserves to be approved on its own merits.”

Ottawa is reportedly considering a provincial aid package, to be featured in the upcoming budget, which would include a cash injection to help Alberta clean up thousands of inactive oil and gas wells abandoned by bankrupt companies.

“Albertans are not going to accept the federal government blocking a project like this that has went through 10 years of regulatory process, that has been approved by both the federal and provincial regulators and has overcome every hurdle.


“For Ottawa to change the rules at the 11th hour would be a devastating signal to the investors looking to invest in Canada and Alberta.”