Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by Slava

^ Do you have a single example of the Harper government trying to get a pipeline through and the others opposing it, causing them to fail? Revisionist history.

Well to be fair, the federal NDP were staunchly opposed to Keystone XL, even going to Washington to protest against it. But they're not the ones in power now. I think from the get go the Liberals have always either been pro pipeline or fairly quiet about the subject.

Here's an article from 2015 stating that Trudeau is neither for or against Energy East.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-east-pipeline

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Climate Change denial? No consultation of data? Look at Canada's GHG production relative other countries. We are not the problem. Can we make further progress? Absolutely, but to sell the farm and handicap our biggest industry which drives the rest of the country in order to do so at a faster pace of other countries that are worse polluters is illogical.

Banning of foreign investment? They simply implemented rules so that foreign companies couldn't come into Canada for O&G resources that would put Canada at a loss. They wanted any foreign purchase to be of a net benefit to Canada.

While I disagree with a few things the conservatives did but as I do with ANY political party, politics is basically choosing the least of all evils. And clearly we have a different view of what evil entails.

Being okay with climate change, or saying Canada can't make a difference would be one thing but the early conservative government was part of the science isn't settled crowd. My main issue with the conservatives wasn't so much policy. It was the refusal to use data to support any policy. Policy was based on ideology.

The foreign company ownership rules kneecapped funding for junior oil companies. For them that was more damaging then income trusts, and lack of pipelines. Essentially the plant or oil leases could no longer be used as collateral for foreign debt, and investors couldn't own more than x percent.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Well to be fair, the federal NDP were staunchly opposed to Keystone XL, even going to Washington to protest against it. But they're not the ones in power now. I think from the get go the Liberals have always either been pro pipeline or fairly quiet about the subject.

Here's an article from 2015 stating that Trudeau is neither for or against Energy East.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...-east-pipeline

You are correct in that the NDP has been the far bigger opposition to pipelines than the Liberals. But the liberals have been more pick and choose with regards to what projects they are willing to support (which is better than just flat out opposing), albeit sometimes in more cryptic ways.

They are taking a different approach in order to approve pipelines but one that takes extra resources and time that a market does not have.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ener...tion-1.3424173

The Liberal government says it opposes a Conservative opposition motion that calls on the House of Commons to express support for the proposed Energy East pipeline.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/3-ma...tand-1.3415768

The federal Liberal government has signalled it intends to formalize a tanker ban on B.C.'s north coast.

http://www.ndp.ca/news/new-democrats...rthern-gateway

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by GGG

Being okay with climate change, or saying Canada can't make a difference would be one thing but the early conservative government was part of the science isn't settled crowd. My main issue with the conservatives wasn't so much policy. It was the refusal to use data to support any policy. Policy was based on ideology.

The foreign company ownership rules kneecapped funding for junior oil companies. For them that was more damaging then income trusts, and lack of pipelines. Essentially the plant or oil leases could no longer be used as collateral for foreign debt, and investors couldn't own more than x percent.

Ok thats fine but at that time was there as large of public support as much as there is today for climate change initiatives? No. Today its much more of predominate topic because there is even more data proving so.

Shifting economies based on hydrocarbon products to renewable energies is not an easy task and will take decades to do so and require the cooperation of everyone globally.

So to do so when there is no global nor national apatite to do so and to be 'first in' on something that only disadvantages a population of ~34M for the short term, when the same goal can be achieved with global cooperation and less short term pain at a later time again is illogical.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Climate Change denial? No consultation of data? Look at Canada's GHG production relative other countries. We are not the problem. Can we make further progress? Absolutely, but to sell the farm and handicap our biggest industry which drives the rest of the country in order to do so at a faster pace of other countries that are worse polluters is illogical.

This. By pretending like Canada's the problem and not focusing on the real emitters you're only making yourself feel good and not doing anything for the planet.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Yes, hydro is clean and pure and has no consequences:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_...nmental_impact


"However, the dam flooded archaeological and cultural sites and displaced some 1.3 million people, and is causing significant ecological changes, including an increased risk of landslides.[20] The dam has been a controversial topic both domestically and abroad.[21]"

I never said it was clean.

It is however practical and if the area can be used, it should be developed properly.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

This. By pretending like Canada's the problem and not focusing on the real emitters you're only making yourself feel good and not doing anything for the planet.

Yeah. It a bit like buying a Hybrid and ignoring the massive energy required to manufacture the batteries. But hey, you can feel good about yourself, amirite?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

I like Hydro as a renewable source, but people need to stop ignoring the entire stream.

"Its clean and pure! Energy from Mother Gaia's flowing embrace!"

Its not like a couple of dudees can throw up a HydroElectric Dam over the weekend for a couple of bucks and some twine, it is a massive project that consumes huge amounts of resources and costs a fortune.

So basically it creates jobs.

One would have to think it isn't very hard to make it work considering the technology has been around for almost a 100 years.

I'm not saying it is clean nor do I say it is always feasible. But it does seem like it is being ignored as a viable energy source for whatever reason.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

This is my problems with all politicians and the political game itself. The fact we have to convince the uneducated / irrationally against/ misinformed / apathetic public to proceed with projects that are needed for the common well being society is insanity.

So I guess you're in favour of greenhouse gas pollution pricing?

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by cal_guy

So I guess you're in favour of greenhouse gas pollution pricing?

I support a carbon tax. I have issue with how hard and fast it's being implemented given the market conditions

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Azure

So basically it creates jobs.

So does digging a hole and filling it again. Job creation is an extremely poor measure of economic viability and desirability.

[Kavvy]

So this should help the price of oil in the short term, no? Also the talks in Quatar are looking positive, however, many think the potential agreement has no impact due to the nations potentially agreeing to production limits which they are already producing at


http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ers-walked-out

Kuwait’s crude production tumbled by 60 percent and its refineries scaled back operations as the state oil company took emergency measures to cope with the first day of an open-ended labor strike.
The OPEC member’s production dropped to 1.1 million barrels a day....
.... Kuwait produced 2.81 million barrels a day last month, making it OPEC’s fourth-largest member, while worldwide supply exceeded demand by 1.6 million in the first quarter, according to the International Energy Agency.

[_Q_]

Not sure if the Kuwait strike will help much in the long term since this is probably temporary. I suppose it'll help work through that inventory we have, which is positive.

[Kavvy]

No deal reached!

I wonder what Monday will look like considering that the deal was to cap production at near max production rates anyway.

I think Saudi is really the only ones who could drastically increase production, and they have only threatened to do it, so the deal wasn't going to change the current supply anyway.

Over reaction by markets
By into stocks
Profit????

[_Q_]

The markets will definitely react to this.... I'm not sure if this lack of a deal changes much of the fundamentals though.

[GGG]

I agree, the question is how much were the markets buying on hope that this deal would push prices further. No extra oil will be produced and Irans position of returning to its pre sanction levels makes sense. So we still new
2
Million barrels of demand or lack of supply to balance the market.

I predict a Monday crash followed
By a slow
Recovery all week

[BrownDrake]

Probably re-tests the $28 to $32 area over the coming months, production declines in the USA and other non-opec production should keep us from breaking to new lows, steady climb probably starting September back to the $40 to $45 area in anticipation of the October OPEC production deal. Probably by that time we see some real significant declines in non-opec production where any deal they come to agree on is a moot point.

That's my guess.

[nik-]

Oil is already down $2 a barrel. Tomorrow is going to be a bloodbath.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by nik-

Oil is already down $2 a barrel. Tomorrow is going to be a bloodbath.

Oil has shrugged off the OPEC politicking and is ticking back up, close to $40.

[peter12]

The bulls appear to be wining the debate so far. Capital expenditure cuts were far too draconian.