Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[OMG!WTF!]

Leaving Montreal for Calgary in the '90's had way more to do with Quebec than Alberta. Everyone left that chaos. I think only about 10% of our head offices are other than oil and gas. But we get tonnes of regional offices, hubs, and other secondary business...Wal Mart, Target (since gone) for example.

[110%]

Many head offices that were in Montreal left in the 90s due to the referendum as well, and they mostly relocated to Calgary or Toronto.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I don't have numbers handy, but there have been lots.

Calgary is #2 in Canada for head offices, ahead of Vancouver and Montreal.

Yes, O&G is one reason. But the positive business environment, due largely to the tax advantage, is a very big reason for it as well.

The ndp is already working on getting rid of the tax advantage. The carbon tax is one way and the corporate tax is another. It should all be in affect by the end of their term.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

The ndp is already working on getting rid of the tax advantage. The carbon tax is one way and the corporate tax is another. It should all be in affect by the end of their term.

Damn Notley for keeping corporate taxes lower than King Ralph.

[PaperBagger'14]

I did some very elementary reading a few days ago regarding carbon emissions and Canada's contributions to them. What really stood out to me were the emissions amounts based on job sector. Oil and gas was #1 at ~25%. The 2nd biggest contributor? Transportation at 23%.

To me that screams of several issues. People are targeting electrical generation as a huge culprit when it's really not, and also the hypocrisy of those against pipelines for environmental reasons. We have a product in Alberta which many desire and it will be moved one way or another. Adding pipelines would cut down our transportation emissions, but it seems most of the vocal special interest groups (I Montreals mayor asking what's in it for them) are more concerned about their benefit than the environment.

/end small rant

[Azure]

So given how unpopular coal is, and how much Alberta still uses for power generation, is there a reason more hydro hasn't been set up? Government investment into a technology like that which has been around for almost a 100 years would create good jobs in Alberta right now.

I recall reading something about a big hydro project in Alberta possibly going ahead but I can't find the article anymore.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Azure

So given how unpopular coal is, and how much Alberta still uses for power generation, is there a reason more hydro hasn't been set up? Government investment into a technology like that which has been around for almost a 100 years would create good jobs in Alberta right now.

I recall reading something about a big hydro project in Alberta possibly going ahead but I can't find the article anymore.

Alberta has a limited amount of hydro available and even though it's clean power, there would be pushback from special interest groups. Several Alberta power companies own hydro in BC and bring it back to Alberta already.

[Azure]

Is it limited because all the possible locations already have hydro plants, or because there isn't enough water(basically)?

As a comparison, Manitoba Hydro generates around $350 million per year in electricity exports, and lots of people feel that number could easily be pushed to a million. The contracts signed are often good for 20-30 years, and therefore it is a steady stream of income. Obviously given it is a crown corporation there is a huge difference, but the general idea still applies.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Is it limited because all the possible locations already have hydro plants, or because there isn't enough water(basically)?

As a comparison, Manitoba Hydro generates around $350 million per year in electricity exports, and lots of people feel that number could easily be pushed to a million. The contracts signed are often good for 20-30 years, and therefore it is a steady stream of income. Obviously given it is a crown corporation there is a huge difference, but the general idea still applies.

The limitation is a self imposed one. The idea is you don't want to divert and control too much of a watershed. The actual amounts and percentages I'm not sure of but with hydro power, it is dammed. Damming too much can cause environmental issues. The reason it is dammed is so that the hydro stations can change electrical output based on how much water flows and in layman's terms, how open the valves are.

Edit: here's an article outlining in basic terms the issues with wind, solar and in situ hydro generation. Since their output cannot be regulated, it can have severe implications (dropping frequency and voltage levels) without having a backup form of generation in place. Read point 5 in specific.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/25/top-11-problems-plaguing-solar-and-wind-power/

[Fuzz]

Interesting graph on it. Ignore the size of the bars, for some reason they don't conform to any scale I can figure out, but the numbers are there.

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Interesting graph on it. Ignore the size of the bars, for some reason they don't conform to any scale I can figure out, but the numbers are there.

Are we talking hydroelectric dams?

Are we now pretending that these don't massively hurt the ecosystem?

Or am I wrong?

Sorry that does sound sarcastic, I just get annoyed from the BC green police when I hear their hydroelectric green rants. Not that you are one of them based on your other posts.


It is interesting though, I wonder how they size up potential power (i.e. have they identified potential sites)?

[Fuzz]

I wasn't making a statement on anything, I just found a graphic that answered a previous poster's question...

[Kavvy]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I wasn't making a statement on anything, I just found a graphic that answered a previous poster's question...

ya sorry, i get that, and how my post seemed like I was on the attack on you, just too much scotch, nothing on you.

Really chalked up to too much scotch and not reading the thread.

[Fuzz]

Maybe if I had had more scotch I wouldn't have noticed...hrmmm more scotch....

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by Azure

So given how unpopular coal is, and how much Alberta still uses for power generation, is there a reason more hydro hasn't been set up? Government investment into a technology like that which has been around for almost a 100 years would create good jobs in Alberta right now.

I recall reading something about a big hydro project in Alberta possibly going ahead but I can't find the article anymore.

There is not enough water in Alberta that could generate enough to offset coal.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

There is not enough water in Alberta that could generate enough to offset coal.

Looking at the data above, and this:
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp
We have 6258 MW of coal generation, vs hydro potential of 11,800MW so technically you could. If that is a good idea or not is a different story.

[PaperBagger'14]

Here's a site with real time data available for generation:

http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet

It's brought to you by AESO (Alberta Electrical System Operator). This data is usually updated by the minute.

[Fuzz]

Cool, thanks. Does the negative value for interchange indicate we are exporting, or importing?

Nevermind, RTFM and see negative is imports.

[GGG]

Double Meat!!!!

[Azure]

Well 900 installed when 12,000 is potentially available is bloody sad.