Alberta Politics Thread v2

[PsYcNeT]

The only good protests are our protests.

[CaptainCrunch]

Husky cuts its capital budget by $300 million and points to the government reduction.


https://globalnews.ca/news/4781546/h...l-curtailment/

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Husky cuts its capital budget by $300 million and points to the government reduction.


https://globalnews.ca/news/4781546/h...l-curtailment/

Maybe they should quit whining and realise this has a net-benefit for the industry as a whole.

If they have an issue, they should probably take it up with the AER panel that is directly responsible for finding solutions for producers that believe their curtailments are too high.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe they should quit whining and realise this has a net-benefit for the industry as a whole.

If they have an issue, they should probably take it up with the AER panel that is directly responsible for finding solutions for producers that believe their curtailments are too high.

Ah yes, from each according to ability. To each, according to need.

We need a pipeline much more than curtailment, and that's the problem of Notley and Trudeau.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe they should quit whining and realise this has a net-benefit for the industry as a whole.

If they have an issue, they should probably take it up with the AER panel that is directly responsible for finding solutions for producers that believe their curtailments are too high.

Did you read the reasoning in the article?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Ah yes, from each according to ability. To each, according to need.

We need a pipeline much more than curtailment, and that's the problem of Notley and Trudeau.

This doesn’t make any sense. No #### we need a pipeline more than curtailment. Curtailment is a temporary solution until (at its longest probably) Enbridge Line 3 comes online to help with the massive surplus.

This is meant to help with the differential, short term. TMX approved today is still a ways off to being online. In no way does this lessen our need for TMX, it helps producers survive today.

Government interference is not ideal, but Kenney also supports it (and actually supported a steeper percentage, though he did have the cutoff for exemption at 25,000 barrels instead of 10,000). Not sure why you’d try to make curtailment a partisan thing.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Did you read the reasoning in the article?

Absolutely, I’ve also directly read some letters to major producers and the economic/production forecast addressing this by a major financial institution as part of my job. I would say take Husky and Suncor’s complaints with a giant grain of salt. Curtailment is something unfortunate for a few major players, but something Alberta needs right now until the federal government gets their #### together.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Maybe they should quit whining and realise this has a net-benefit for the industry as a whole.

If they have an issue, they should probably take it up with the AER panel that is directly responsible for finding solutions for producers that believe their curtailments are too high.

Your response is odd to a Capital budget cut. This was the expected outcome that the Big 3 integrates companies would decrease capital spend in 2019 due to a curtailment. This only makes sense as you defer increases in production. The question is increaesed spending (or a smaller decrease in spending) of the non-integrated companies due to increased cash flows and additional government revenues offsets the losses of the Big 3.

I can also Almost guarantee that every oil company being curtailed is in communication with the AER on why their curtailment is too high.

The other thing is the big 3 should keep “whining”. They profit by picking up distressed assets from the juniors and mids. Helping out MEG and Cenouvos plus the other small players harms the long term of the Big guys.

When a company behaves as we expect them to behave we shouldn’t be complaining.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

When a company behaves as we expect them to behave we shouldn’t be complaining.

Not really a complaint, more like a “get over it”

[Mr.Coffee]

People act like TMX solves the problem. It actually doesn’t even bridge the gap or forecasts remotely. Even if TMX is built and operational we actually still need a couple more pipelines lol

This country is such a mess. NO investor wants anything to do with Canada. What an absolute disaster.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

The only good protests are our protests.

You jest, but the outcome of the cost/benefit analysis of a protest does depend on the nature of the cause.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

People act like TMX solves the problem. It actually doesn’t even bridge the gap or forecasts remotely. Even if TMX is built and operational we actually still need a couple more pipelines lol

This country is such a mess. NO investor wants anything to do with Canada. What an absolute disaster.

Truth.

TMX upgrades us from Backwater Basket Case to Joke. To get from Joke status to anything approaching a first world country people would actually want to invest in would take another coastal pipeline and probably multiple years. It's really hard to overstate the damage that has been done to this country.

To put it in perspective, these pipelines that we're still struggling to build were proposed before the Americans even knew they had a oil boom on their hands. In that time they discovered oil, produced it, proposed the pipelines, built them, and they'll be onstream in Q3 2019 while we're still fighting about how much consulting to do with groups that don't freaking care at all about being consulted.

[8 Ball]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

Truth.

TMX upgrades us from Backwater Basket Case to Joke. To get from Joke status to anything approaching a first world country people would actually want to invest in would take another coastal pipeline and probably multiple years. It's really hard to overstate the damage that has been done to this country.

To put it in perspective, these pipelines that we're still struggling to build were proposed before the Americans even knew they had a oil boom on their hands. In that time they discovered oil, produced it, proposed the pipelines, built them, and they'll be onstream in Q3 2019 while we're still fighting about how much consulting to do with groups that don't freaking care at all about being consulted.

Well apparently they didn't conduct a risk assessment of the terror male construction workers have on society.

[Brewmaster]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

People act like TMX solves the problem. It actually doesn’t even bridge the gap or forecasts remotely. Even if TMX is built and operational we actually still need a couple more pipelines lol

Not sure I agree with that. With fixed contracts for rail taking up a larger wedge along with Enbridge additions and optimizations, the capacity out of Alberta will continue to grow over the next couple years to bridge the gap of new projects coming on. Beyond that, I would argue that if Keystone XL gets built there may not be the need for TMX (other than for strategic interests of diversifying out of the US). In that case, having the government owning the project may actually be favorable, since they would likely build it with or without firm commitments from producers.

On the supply side, low oil prices and shrinking capital programs are making major oil sands expansions less likely, and 'conventional' oil looks to have peaked and flat-lined in the WCSB. The big 5 (SU, CNQ, HSE, CVE, IMO) all have a few projects/expansions that will come on in the next 5 years, but that might be it for growth out of the oil sands.

[icecube]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What if it was a convoy of natives idling no more?

https://forum.calgarypuck.com/showth...highlight=Idle

Shame on CalgaryPuck for the racism in that thread. What kind of site does Bingo want to run, honestly? Cringe worthy going back to read even the first couple of pages.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

https://www.economist.com/the-americ...rtas-tar-sands

Thoughts?

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

https://www.economist.com/the-americ...rtas-tar-sands

Thoughts?

I mean first of all, that article loses a lot of credibility by repeatedly using the term Tar Sands.

Other than that it seems to be the standard Alberta hit piece. Pontificating constantly about the pressing need to fully decarbonize and "diversify". These articles aren't connected to the reality that the world will need oil for further decades, you'd have to be stupid or a boy scout to just pass those funds up. I n fact further money from developing oil and gas will only help diversifying the economy and to top up the Heritage Fund that we always get slammed for being too small. I'll be looking for followup articles from the economist on why Texas and Russia and Saudi Arabia should shut down their oil sectors as well, because surely they wouldnt single us out arbitrarily...

[CaptainCrunch]

Pretty much my feelings are stated by Spike, but the minute that people start using the term Tarsands my eye's glaze over and I tune out.


I get the need to diversify, nobody thinks, we're going to be a strict Oil and Gas State. But frankly it takes money, and that's going to come from Oil and Gas not fairy wishes and unicorn fantasies. And there is still massive demand for Oil and Gas, and that's going to continue for some time, so shutting it down makes no sense, because that doesn't make us a leader to be admired and respected it makes us morons who are willing to give up funds while other countries step in and take market share.


Its a typical article that's been written a thousand times before and adds nothing new.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I mean first of all, that article loses a lot of credibility by repeatedly using the term Tar Sands.

Other than that it seems to be the standard Alberta hit piece. Pontificating constantly about the pressing need to fully decarbonize and "diversify". These articles aren't connected to the reality that the world will need oil for further decades, you'd have to be stupid or a boy scout to just pass those funds up. I n fact further money from developing oil and gas will only help diversifying the economy and to top up the Heritage Fund that we always get slammed for being too small. I'll be looking for followup articles from the economist on why Texas and Russia and Saudi Arabia should shut down their oil sectors as well, because surely they wouldnt single us out arbitrarily...

I don't see it as passing the available market opportunities up, or shutting the industry down....and agree wholeheartedly with the bolded part.


However, I do see a risk that the market for Alberta's hydrocarbons (as they are currently developed) as being a 'limited time offer' and at risk for a range of reasons (eg the next Shale innovation, ICE engines being largely phased out, etc). Oil could also turn around and be very profitable soon...which would, of course, be the best outcome, but how many times can that happen?



from You Might Be From Alberta If

I think the Government of Alberta should do three things :
1 - Do all they can to get after the existing hydrocarbon market, keep going after it as long as we can
2 - Help energy companies find efficiencies and value with innovation (eg get after AI, Blockchain, new refining methods, improved extraction methods). This will create a local demand for nerds, which will help build the next-gen Alberta companies for our kids to work at someday.
3 - Build urgency with the public about the ongoing need for Alberta to upgrade its economy.

I am absolutely in favour of doing everything needed to build state of the art pipeline systems to get hydrocarbons to the markets that will pay the most (or whatever helps with the immediate crisis). But I also believe that Albertans need to think Lougheed-style about the future. By which I mean, investing in innovation to expand Alberta's economic options and saving natural resource wealth in the Heritage Fund (if we should be so lucky as to see another sustained windfall).

PS And it does suck that the Economist uses the term 'Tar Sands'...someone should write the editor, point out the 'crudeness' of the term and ask them to 'upgrade' their lexicon (pun intended)

PPS And Alberta should be pissed that the Heritage Fund is small, flatlining the contributions to the Fund was an epically expensive mistake.

PPPS I was impressed with the two research projects mentioned in the article...turning CO2 in carbon nanofibres and making bitumen jujubes to make rail transport safer.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by DiracSpike

I mean first of all, that article loses a lot of credibility by repeatedly using the term Tar Sands.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Pretty much my feelings are stated by Spike, but the minute that people start using the term Tarsands my eye's glaze over and I tune out.

In other words .... "I ignore anything that doesn't fit my narrative.



You'd be doing the forum a favour if you guys would keep this kind of thing in the Groundhog Day Angry Conservative thread.